Hating on Confusion and HIT Training

Question: If a muscle is still sore,is it completely healed and recovered? I am often sore for 3-4 days after a workout. Once the muscle has healed and grown, how long does it take to start to atrophy? Immediately? Hell no! That is why I only train each muscle group once a week. It may be possible to grow faster training sooner,but if I workout BEFORE the muscle is fully recovered and grown,I short change all my hard work. This is why many lifters don’t get bigger,of course not the only reason. I would rather take my time and know I have recovered properly etc…Confusion

Question: How many exercises per body part and reps does it take to break down the muscle enough for it to come back bigger and stronger?

I think only a couple exercises with as heavy a weight as possible for somewhere in the range of 5-8 reps(or somewhere around there). Once the muscle has failed with a heavy weight,it IS broken down and ready to grow. It does NOT need to be broken down more,this will only require more recovery with no greater increase in size. Confusion

Which is the growth rep? The LAST one. Why not get there as quick as possible without dicking around with medium weight sets,they just waste energy that could be used in the last set and the growth reps. Warm up, hit the muscle with a weight that it needs to get stronger to lift for 8 reps or whatever,then eat carbs after the workout(thank you Charles Dixon),grow,give your girlfriend flowers and talk crap on facebook or whatever. Confusion

Good luck with whatever all you’ve got going on, man.

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[quote]confusion wrote:
Arrogant? Not sure. Come to me with a question,don’t like the answer,then tell me to come to YOU with a better one. Hmm. Might be being over sensitive on this one. I hope so.
[/quote]

No, not arrogant. I am unconvinced of the success of your method by evaluating the success you have personally experienced with it.

I very much liked your answer, it satisfied my question, and I informed you of how your answer affected my perspective of the effectiveness of your method. I also stated that, if you were to experience a greater deal of success with the method, I would consider it to be a more effective method.

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
How big and strong have you become using these methods?[/quote]

No answer for this question will be good enough. Why? Mike and Ray Mentzer were both bigger and stronger than you and probably Casey Viator as well. Not gonna change the way you train though right? Why ask the question. Confusion
[/quote]

I am unconcerned with the success of trainees that were not following the explicit method you are currently following. I was interested in your explicit experience with the routine.

You can never know what another trainee is doing. Mike and Ray Mentzer and Casey Viator could have been exposing the values of HIT all along and then sneaking away at night to do a higher volume/high frequency routine. They could have been using a high dosage of anabolics, which would alter the effectiveness of the program compared to a natural trainee. Their data to me has no specific value. YOURS, however, by your own admission is all truth with no deviation, so I ask you what your own experience is, especially if you wish to vouch for the method.

This is why I ask you for your experiences, not for you to report the experiences of others.

[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: How many exercises per body part and reps does it take to break down the muscle enough for it to come back bigger and stronger?

I think only a couple exercises with as heavy a weight as possible for somewhere in the range of 5-8 reps(or somewhere around there). Once the muscle has failed with a heavy weight,it IS broken down and ready to grow. It does NOT need to be broken down more,this will only require more recovery with no greater increase in size. Confusion[/quote]

This somewhat depends on the shape and complexity of the muscle. Yes it’s true that a muscle either contracts or it doesn’t (all or none principle), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the fibers on the muscle are equally stressed or in the direct line of pull (and therefore broken down to the point of illiciting adaptation).

For instance the four muscles that comprise the Quadriceps group all converge into the Patellar tendon, but the fibers of these muscles and lines of pull in which each muscle is maximally stressed differ. So simply doing leg presses (or back squats) is not likely to stimulate maximal growth in the quadriceps as a whole. The body is meant to operate in 3 dimensional space, not only in fixed straight lines like those found in machines and since muscles are the only things that can move out bodies through that space, we have to actually stress the muscles in different planes of movement if we truly want to overload all potential fibers and maximize muscular growth.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

Yeah, SC and Power Factor training are a load of mental masturbation BS. Any time I hear John Little’s name associated with any training system or philosophy I immediately put on my heavy duty (get it?) BS detector glasses.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

Yeah, SC and Power Factor training are a load of mental masturbation BS. Any time I hear John Little’s name associated with any training system or philosophy I immediately put on my heavy duty (get it?) BS detector glasses.[/quote]

“Power Factor Training” was ridiculous. Anyone can leg press 2000 lbs if they merely unlock their knees. This idea that your muscles were moving so much more weight (with the aid of max leverage) would cause extra growth was misleading. The amount of tension on the muscle is the most important thing, not how much weight you can inch up.

I admit, I fell for that one too when it came out.

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

Yeah, SC and Power Factor training are a load of mental masturbation BS. Any time I hear John Little’s name associated with any training system or philosophy I immediately put on my heavy duty (get it?) BS detector glasses.[/quote]

“Power Factor Training” was ridiculous. Anyone can leg press 2000 lbs if they merely unlock their knees. This idea that your muscles were moving so much more weight (with the aid of max leverage) would cause extra growth was misleading. The amount of tension on the muscle is the most important thing, not how much weight you can inch up.

I admit, I fell for that one too when it came out.[/quote]

One thing that Little and his HIT brethren are fairly good at is making what seem like perfectly logical arguments for training methodologies which in fact have no basis in actual physiology or biomechanics/kinesiology and so fail when actually applied by the average person. To their credit though, every now and then they do actually make a good point or come up with a good training principle, but just like a broken clock that is right twice a day, I wouldn’t advise basing my entire training program on their advice/principles.

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
Arrogant? Not sure. Come to me with a question,don’t like the answer,then tell me to come to YOU with a better one. Hmm. Might be being over sensitive on this one. I hope so.
[/quote]

No, not arrogant. I am unconvinced of the success of your method by evaluating the success you have personally experienced with it.

I very much liked your answer, it satisfied my question, and I informed you of how your answer affected my perspective of the effectiveness of your method. I also stated that, if you were to experience a greater deal of success with the method, I would consider it to be a more effective method.[/quote]

cool

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
How big and strong have you become using these methods?[/quote]

No answer for this question will be good enough. Why? Mike and Ray Mentzer were both bigger and stronger than you and probably Casey Viator as well. Not gonna change the way you train though right? Why ask the question. Confusion
[/quote]

I am unconcerned with the success of trainees that were not following the explicit method you are currently following. I was interested in your explicit experience with the routine.

You can never know what another trainee is doing. Mike and Ray Mentzer and Casey Viator could have been exposing the values of HIT all along and then sneaking away at night to do a higher volume/high frequency routine. They could have been using a high dosage of anabolics, which would alter the effectiveness of the program compared to a natural trainee. Their data to me has no specific value. YOURS, however, by your own admission is all truth with no deviation, so I ask you what your own experience is, especially if you wish to vouch for the method.

This is why I ask you for your experiences, not for you to report the experiences of others.
[/quote]

gotcha, I understand better now and respect that!

i don’t know anything about John Little,so…I can’t respond to his principles. I do know about Mike Mentzer and respect many,but not all of his

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Good luck with whatever all you’ve got going on, man.[/quote]

Well done getting 4000 posts, and you also

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

Yeah, SC and Power Factor training are a load of mental masturbation BS. Any time I hear John Little’s name associated with any training system or philosophy I immediately put on my heavy duty (get it?) BS detector glasses.[/quote]

“Power Factor Training” was ridiculous. Anyone can leg press 2000 lbs if they merely unlock their knees. This idea that your muscles were moving so much more weight (with the aid of max leverage) would cause extra growth was misleading. The amount of tension on the muscle is the most important thing, not how much weight you can inch up.

I admit, I fell for that one too when it came out.[/quote]

One thing that Little and his HIT brethren are fairly good at is making what seem like perfectly logical arguments for training methodologies which in fact have no basis in actual physiology or biomechanics/kinesiology and so fail when actually applied by the average person. To their credit though, every now and then they do actually make a good point or come up with a good training principle, but just like a broken clock that is right twice a day, I wouldn’t advise basing my entire training program on their advice/principles.[/quote]

I agree with most of this

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

not gonna go back and forth on when mentzer was winning titles and why. anyone can google and see that for themselves. I hear what you’re saying about not progressing with it. I am though and feel it is a legitimate way to train for many of us to achieve our goals. Do you think the type of training I am touting is worthless?

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: How many exercises per body part and reps does it take to break down the muscle enough for it to come back bigger and stronger?

I think only a couple exercises with as heavy a weight as possible for somewhere in the range of 5-8 reps(or somewhere around there). Once the muscle has failed with a heavy weight,it IS broken down and ready to grow. It does NOT need to be broken down more,this will only require more recovery with no greater increase in size. Confusion[/quote]

This somewhat depends on the shape and complexity of the muscle. Yes it’s true that a muscle either contracts or it doesn’t (all or none principle), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the fibers on the muscle are equally stressed or in the direct line of pull (and therefore broken down to the point of illiciting adaptation).

For instance the four muscles that comprise the Quadriceps group all converge into the Patellar tendon, but the fibers of these muscles and lines of pull in which each muscle is maximally stressed differ. So simply doing leg presses (or back squats) is not likely to stimulate maximal growth in the quadriceps as a whole. The body is meant to operate in 3 dimensional space, not only in fixed straight lines like those found in machines and since muscles are the only things that can move out bodies through that space, we have to actually stress the muscles in different planes of movement if we truly want to overload all potential fibers and maximize muscular growth.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree. Where does that leave us?

[quote]confusion wrote:
i don’t know anything about John Little,so…I can’t respond to his principles. I do know about Mike Mentzer and respect many,but not all of his[/quote]

You don’t truly know Mentzer if you think he built the majority of his size on HIT/ Heavy Duty. It’s a common misconception that he did. Google ‘Mike Mentzer’s Most Productive Routine’. I’d post a link but it will be removed.

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
Mentzer did a traditional 3 x a week full body routine from the age of twelve up to and during college. He admitted to it in an interview. His ‘perfected’ system is only a small part of his training history. [/quote]

AND, it was during the time he competed and won his titles that he trained with Heavy Duty(HIT),so this is a bit beside the point. Confusion[/quote]

False. Mentzer was winning titles years before he began using the concepts that would be the foundations of Heavy Duty. Go and read his interview with John Little where he talks about the evolution of HD.

It’s very much the point that beginners should not be using a system designed by an advanced bodybuilder, for advanced bodybuilders. The frequency guidelines alone defy all common sense.

Just so you know, I have trained in Mentzer-insprired HIT systems in the past (Static Contraction/ Power Factor training) and they were a waste of time. Thing is, from a logical standpoint they make perfect sense. It’s very easy to get seduced into ignoring the flaws by the lure of promised results. I might even have persevered with them if I didn’t have the experience of other methods as a point of reference for how much progress I should’ve been making.

Edit : Fortunately HIT was not my first experience of lifting, otherwise I might be blaming myself and not the system for the lack of progress I experienced…

[/quote]

not gonna go back and forth on when mentzer was winning titles and why. anyone can google and see that for themselves. I hear what you’re saying about not progressing with it. I am though and feel it is a legitimate way to train for many of us to achieve our goals. Do you think the type of training I am touting is worthless?
[/quote]

For a beginner, yes. UberMentzer didn’t use HIT principles as a beginner and he progressed on every method he ever tried (including splits). I’ve no doubt that he progressed on HD-style training too, but among other qualities, he had cultivated the intensity to survive infrequent, punishing workouts. Plus he walked the knife edge between sanity and madness.

You don’t have to be nuts to do HIT, but it helps.