[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, that’s it.
Thanks!
A couple years ago, I tried hard to find them on the net, after their disappearing from the MedX website, and at that time they seemed nowhere to be found. I suppose people stepped in to fill the gap, hence now the many copies you report. I’m glad they’re back up.[/quote]
np.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A Brief History of HIT
Early 1960s and prior: Arthur Jones personally trains at 48 sets per workout, 3x/week (124 set per week) and remains stagnant for years. This is a very typical training program of the day and also does not do so much for most.
Simultaneously, “really serious” weight trainers train in two sessions of two or three hours each most or all days of the week. Only those with phenomenal genetics obtain great results from this.
Late 60’s (approximately): Arthur Jones decides that since all he is accomplishing with 48 sets per workout is maintaining, and he figures he can probably maintain on half the work, therefore he will save time and reduce to 24 sets per workout. He has no expectations other than saving time and does nothing in particular except reduce the volume. To his surprise, he rapidly adds 10 or more lb (I forget the figure) and realizes he is onto something.
Early 70’s: Arthur Jones publishes his Training Bulletins, the programs of which call for three workouts per week of 24 sets each (72 sets per week), and enjoys the only period of his career where he has real success with competitive bodybuilders and pro athletes such as NFL players.
He also finds that high-level competitive bodybuilders can typically gain 1/4" on their arms merely from taking a few days off, and then add another 1/4" (whether long-term or not isn’t known, but at the time anyway even if perhaps only swelling) with one or two, I don’t recall, of his workouts. He fails to credit the preparatory effect of the previous high-volume training that led into it and gives his methods all the credit.
Mid and late 70’s: The need for Nautilus equipment to be commercially viable for health clubs aimed at the average person, combined with Jones’ tendency or at least willingness to assume that “logic” dictated that going as far as possible in a direction that had worked well so far must be even better, decided to reduce the claimed-optimal amount of sets to as little as 12 to even 6 or 8 sets 3 times per week, and only one set per exercise. This way club members could go through a circuit quickly and be done with it.
No higher level athletes or bodybuilders that I know of were successful with this.
Late 70’s and early 80’s. Nautilus signs Mike and Ray Mentzer, genetically promising individuals who had buit their physiques with more traditional training and promptly dead-ended their careers with HIT.
Mike Mentzer aggravates his psychological conditions with amphetamine abuse and drinking own urine and as a consequence claims the best thing is almost no volume of training at all. Drug-induced “logic” is used to expound the “inevitability” of this.
Aside from proving useful to exactly zero competitive athletes or bodybuilders, ever, Mentzer – despite in fact training much more than his theory calls for as he has no hope of competing at all using his published methods, but still training much less than what works for everyone else – enters the 1980 Olympia. He is furious that Arnold entered at the last minute. Arnold psychologically destroys Mentzer (or what was left of Mentzer) by saying, roughly quoted, “What difference does it make, Mike? It’s not as if you have a chance to win. As soon as your big belly rolls across the stage, it will be all over for you.”
Mentzer only ties for 4th, but in a deluded state claims himself forever after as the “real” Mr Olympia of 1980, having been denied the title only on account of being cheated by Arnold. Mentzer retires and claims that “Heavy Duty” is proven as the only correct way to train.
By way of personal testimony as to Mentzer’s mental state, sometime in the early 90’s he, in writing, communicated to me a pretty-clearly-intended-as-serious threat to have a person break my kneecaps if I ever said anything about him again – I had written something similar to the above on the Internet. Obviously, as it’s a felony to communicate such physical threats, a psychological problem is indicated if someone does so anyway. Additionally, Mentzer advised me I was foolish to “knock drinking urine” and the fact that I did so only demonstrated that I had never tried it. Take that for what you will.
(Note, these points about Mentzer’s mental state are not irrelevant ad hominem attacks: these points are brought up because Mentzer claimed his own mental powers as being authoritative, and belief in the projected personality of Mentzer is a common reason for belief in his system of training. Accordingly, facts pointing where his mind actually was – was he as clear-minded as he thought he was and his followers think he is? – are relevant.)
1970’s and beyond: Ellington Darden publishes The Nautilus Book, achieving NYT Best Seller status and bringing Arther Jones’ post-Training-Bulletins ideas on training to the masses. Very effective for the average individual in becoming substantially stronger and more fit though not for reaching maximum potential.
Darden writes another book or two, then recycles same two or three books into perhaps thirty yet further books using cut and paste function, further promoting late-Jones (post-Training Bulletins) version of HIT, but with some additions such as somewhat-reluctantly accepting bodypart splits.
Among more serious lifters, however, during this period HIT is viewed as something most did try but which did not work long-term.
Mid-1990’s: Dorian Yates trains relatively briefly (moreso than Darden or the later Jones would wish and far more than Mentzer) and typically two sets per exercise, and brings back interest in briefer-than-typical training.
Relatively recently, Dante describes the unfortunately-named “DoggCrapp” (DC) training which many find productive.
Summary: While many things have been called “HIT,” the ones that have worked, in terms of bringing people to for-them very high levels of development, have been Jones’ original version as described in the Training Bulletins, and more recent variants such as Yates’ and Dante’s.
The versions claimed to be proven “inescapably true” by “logic” don’t in fact work well. The entire “middle period,” one might call it, of HIT was a blunder. The later Jones methods remain capable of giving good improvement for many months to novices and for some time for intermediates, and may remain useful for advanced trainers as a temporary, short-term changeup, but not as a sole long-term training method. Just doesn’t work well for that.
And as for Mentzer’s methods, the less said the better. Just not good.[/quote]
Thank you for your well layed out and developed responses from everyone. I’m really dissapointed I spent that much time on it now. I really thought my god why doesn’t everyone use this system if it works this well. I spent hours reading the books then hours in the gym using his method and figured this was the way to train. I suppose its time to scrap menzters method. Did he really drink his own urine? If so I’m even more dissapointed I really bought into this guy as genuine. As they described in his book a quite saint, who took everything in stride and used logic and science to win bodybuilding. He was nothing more then another greedy bodybuilder. That’s why Arnolds the champ he loves money but he got it honest.
[quote]tnt2005 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
A Brief History of HIT
Early 1960s and prior: Arthur Jones personally trains at 48 sets per workout, 3x/week (124 set per week) and remains stagnant for years. This is a very typical training program of the day and also does not do so much for most.
Simultaneously, “really serious” weight trainers train in two sessions of two or three hours each most or all days of the week. Only those with phenomenal genetics obtain great results from this.
Late 60’s (approximately): Arthur Jones decides that since all he is accomplishing with 48 sets per workout is maintaining, and he figures he can probably maintain on half the work, therefore he will save time and reduce to 24 sets per workout.
He has no expectations other than saving time and does nothing in particular except reduce the volume. To his surprise, he rapidly adds 10 or more lb (I forget the figure) and realizes he is onto something.
Early 70’s: Arthur Jones publishes his Training Bulletins, the programs of which call for three workouts per week of 24 sets each (72 sets per week), and enjoys the only period of his career where he has real success with competitive bodybuilders and pro athletes such as NFL players.
He also finds that high-level competitive bodybuilders can typically gain 1/4" on their arms merely from taking a few days off, and then add another 1/4" (whether long-term or not isn’t known, but at the time anyway even if perhaps only swelling) with one or two, I don’t recall, of his workouts.
He fails to credit the preparatory effect of the previous high-volume training that led into it and gives his methods all the credit.
Mid and late 70’s: The need for Nautilus equipment to be commercially viable for health clubs aimed at the average person, combined with Jones’ tendency or at least willingness to assume that “logic” dictated that going as far as possible in a direction that had worked well so far must be even better,
decided to reduce the claimed-optimal amount of sets to as little as 12 to even 6 or 8 sets 3 times per week, and only one set per exercise. This way club members could go through a circuit quickly and be done with it.
No higher level athletes or bodybuilders that I know of were successful with this.
Late 70’s and early 80’s. Nautilus signs Mike and Ray Mentzer, genetically promising individuals who had buit their physiques with more traditional training and promptly dead-ended their careers with HIT.
Mike Mentzer aggravates his psychological conditions with amphetamine abuse and drinking own urine and as a consequence claims the best thing is almost no volume of training at all. Drug-induced “logic” is used to expound the “inevitability” of this.
Aside from proving useful to exactly zero competitive athletes or bodybuilders, ever, Mentzer – despite in fact training much more than his theory calls for as he has no hope of competing at all using his published methods, but still training much less than what works for everyone else – enters the 1980 Olympia.
He is furious that Arnold entered at the last minute. Arnold psychologically destroys Mentzer (or what was left of Mentzer) by saying, roughly quoted, “What difference does it make, Mike? It’s not as if you have a chance to win. As soon as your big belly rolls across the stage, it will be all over for you.”
Mentzer only ties for 4th, but in a deluded state claims himself forever after as the “real” Mr Olympia of 1980, having been denied the title only on account of being cheated by Arnold. Mentzer retires and claims that “Heavy Duty” is proven as the only correct way to train.
By way of personal testimony as to Mentzer’s mental state, sometime in the early 90’s he, in writing, communicated to me a pretty-clearly-intended-as-serious threat to have a person break my kneecaps if I ever said anything about him again – I had written something similar to the above on the Internet.
Obviously, as it’s a felony to communicate such physical threats, a psychological problem is indicated if someone does so anyway. Additionally, Mentzer advised me I was foolish to “knock drinking urine” and the fact that I did so only demonstrated that I had never tried it. Take that for what you will.
(Note, these points about Mentzer’s mental state are not irrelevant ad hominem attacks: these points are brought up because Mentzer claimed his own mental powers as being authoritative, and belief in the projected personality of Mentzer is a common reason for belief in his system of training.
Accordingly, facts pointing where his mind actually was – was he as clear-minded as he thought he was and his followers think he is? – are relevant.)
1970’s and beyond: Ellington Darden publishes The Nautilus Book, achieving NYT Best Seller status and bringing Arther Jones’ post-Training-Bulletins ideas on training to the masses. Very effective for the average individual in becoming substantially stronger and more fit though not for reaching maximum potential.
Darden writes another book or two, then recycles same two or three books into perhaps thirty yet further books using cut and paste function, further promoting late-Jones (post-Training Bulletins) version of HIT, but with some additions such as somewhat-reluctantly accepting bodypart splits.
Among more serious lifters, however, during this period HIT is viewed as something most did try but which did not work long-term.
Mid-1990’s: Dorian Yates trains relatively briefly (moreso than Darden or the later Jones would wish and far more than Mentzer) and typically two sets per exercise, and brings back interest in briefer-than-typical training.
Relatively recently, Dante describes the unfortunately-named “DoggCrapp” (DC) training which many find productive.
Summary: While many things have been called “HIT,” the ones that have worked, in terms of bringing people to for-them very high levels of development, have been Jones’ original version as described in the Training Bulletins, and more recent variants such as Yates’ and Dante’s.
The versions claimed to be proven “inescapably true” by “logic” don’t in fact work well. The entire “middle period,” one might call it, of HIT was a blunder.
The later Jones methods remain capable of giving good improvement for many months to novices and for some time for intermediates, and may remain useful for advanced trainers as a temporary, short-term changeup, but not as a sole long-term training method. Just doesn’t work well for that.
And as for Mentzer’s methods, the less said the better. Just not good.
Thank you for your well layed out and developed responses from everyone. I’m really dissapointed I spent that much time on it now. I really thought my god why doesn’t everyone use this system if it works this well.
I spent hours reading the books then hours in the gym using his method and figured this was the way to train. I suppose its time to scrap menzters method. Did he really drink his own urine? If so I’m even more dissapointed I really bought into this guy as genuine.
As they described in his book a quite saint, who took everything in stride and used logic and science to win bodybuilding. He was nothing more then another greedy bodybuilder. That’s why Arnolds the champ he loves money but he got it honest.[/quote]
That is a lesson which most of us had to learn in some form at some point during our lifting careers.
You will find that mentzer isn’t the only one like that… BB/fitness is full of such people.
Many never realize…
Wow, extremely insightful post Bill, thanks for sharing.
I am not a fan of the Jones/Darden principles.
[quote]saps wrote:
Heavy Duty and Mentzer has/had its place but as things evolve I think something like DC is a better plan of attack[/quote]
Agreed. 1-set to failure goes against how muscles work and grow. This approach only works for a short time.
DC includes multiple warm up sets and rest pause sets, which is more effective. My only issue with DC is that it is really a strength protocol, not bodybuilding. So if you are looking for size alone, another approach would probably work better than DC.
DC is a bodybuilding program plane and simple… it uses strength gains to elicit growth but it is for muscular size gains only.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
saps wrote:
Heavy Duty and Mentzer has/had its place but as things evolve I think something like DC is a better plan of attack
Agreed. 1-set to failure goes against how muscles work and grow. This approach only works for a short time.
DC includes multiple warm up sets and rest pause sets, which is more effective. My only issue with DC is that it is really a strength protocol, not bodybuilding. So if you are looking for size alone, another approach would probably work better than DC. [/quote]
I’m sure you would know.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
DC is a bodybuilding program plane and simple… it uses strength gains to elicit growth but it is for muscular size gains only.
[/quote]
Not that it’s bad but methods based on fatigue/exhaustion (training to failure and rest/pause stuff) are really methods of increasing strength, not for hypertrophy. Remember that DC was a strength training person before a bodybuilder.
[quote]tnt2005 wrote:
I suppose its time to scrap menzters method. Did he really drink his own urine? If so I’m even more dissapointed I really bought into this guy as genuine. [/quote]
He’s widely reported to have practiced this, and what he wrote to me sure sounded like acknowledging it. I wouldn’t think someone who didn’t drink his urine would write that the fact that I had knocked it only proved that I hadn’t tried it. There was also I think something about smarter or wiser people than myself doing it and knew the merits or something, but on that I’m fuzzy (many years have passed on this) while the first part I remember quite clearly.
I guess that’s not absolutely conclusive, but I took it as confirmation.
That he had quite serious mental problems, sadly, there can be no doubt about. For example between 1985 and 1990 he was frequently institutionalized.
None of that makes him a bad person: I don’t believe that at all. I wish things had gone better for him. It means that he was having to operate under some severe difficulties that it’s almost impossible to overcome to the extent of experiencing no problems from it, and means that his thinking was not as clear as he thought that it was or as it may seem, at first, to be from reading his persuasively-written works.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
DC is a bodybuilding program plane and simple… it uses strength gains to elicit growth but it is for muscular size gains only.
[/quote]
I respect your (and C_C’s) opinion on DC-- what is so different from DC that makes it so effective vs. Jones/Mentzer HIT?
I’m truly just curious. I have actually re-worked my program to incorporate some DC principles, but I couldn’t say I’m “doing DC” right now. I like the fact that it’s a 2-way split (I don’t like breaking things down further than that), that you hit everything twice in a week, that you measure progression solely on the basis of one “work” set (some of which use R-P, some of which don’t) and that you use 1 exercise per muscle group per session. I also like the simple approach to cardio (frequent, morning walks) and nutrition (high protein, carb cutoff).
Well DC is used for strength in the gym to elicit a growth response for bodybuilder… the growth is obviously fueled by the food we eat but the training is resulting in hypertrophy(A LOT). I personally don’t see much of a difference… but if someone said DC is for strength and not size they would be entirely wrong.
Edit: Forgot to add… when was Dante a strength training person before a bodybuilder? His magazine Hardcore Muscle was bodybuilding and that was mid 90s so I’m not really positive where you are getting that.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
I respect your (and C_C’s) opinion on DC-- what is so different from DC that makes it so effective vs. Jones/Mentzer HIT?
[/quote]
I am in a rush to get out the door but I will be back in about an hour to give you a full answer but real quick
Jones=too much
Mentzer=not enough
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Not that it’s bad but methods based on fatigue/exhaustion (training to failure and rest/pause stuff) are really methods of increasing strength, not for hypertrophy. Remember that DC was a strength training person before a bodybuilder.
Well DC is used for strength in the gym to elicit a growth response for bodybuilder… the growth is obviously fueled by the food we eat but the training is resulting in hypertrophy(A LOT). I personally don’t see much of a difference… but if someone said DC is for strength and not size they would be entirely wrong.
trextacy wrote:
I respect your (and C_C’s) opinion on DC-- what is so different from DC that makes it so effective vs. Jones/Mentzer HIT?
I am in a rush to get out the door but I will be back in about an hour to give you a full answer but real quick
Jones=too much
Mentzer=not enough
[/quote]
Haha- thanks.
Not that you asked, but my general breakdown is a push/pull (that is my 2-way split, as opposed to what DC does).
I realize I may get flamed for this, but let me clarify that I’m just implementing some DC concepts into a program that works for me with my current home set-up (no machines) and where I would place myself on the scale of physique progress (intermediate). While DC is an advanced technique, I refuse to believe that you can’t apply some of the concepts and still get great resuls-- in other words, the whole “if you aren’t doing it exactly as written then you risk creating a worm hole and poking a hole in the side of the universe”. I think not claiming to be “training doggcrapp” should be sufficient.
I’m a huge fan of full-body and 2-way splits because I believe frequency and a focus on progression in key movements is key. I love the idea of measuring progress with 1 work set. I love the intensity. As I’ve said in another thread (cough-splits are useless-cough) I think getting brutally strong in certain exercises is the best way to grow. I got flamed like a mofo for saying it (I guess because in the context of the discussion I was seen as the tbt guy) but that part of Dante’s system really appeals to my overall philosophy.
Anyways…
My push/pull consists of an A and a B workout for each (so 4 workouts total- Push A, Push B, Pull A, Pull B). I go Monday-Wednesday-Friday-Monday (like DC). I do morning light cardio before breakfast. I eat a lot. So, lots of DC influence.
I only do 3 exercises per workout (1 per bodypart) and do 2 exercises per bodypart per rotation (as opposed to 3 like Dante would). For someone who is intermediate, I think I can progress on 2 movements per bodypart, and by consolidating things in a 3 exercise per session fashion I can really target my growth. I will switch things up and use different exercises after 5-7 weeks. I am going to use this 100% so the results will speak for themselves.
Push- Chest, triceps, quads and shoulders. As you will see I rotate the shoulder focus and triceps focus. There is a reason for this. Delts/tris are incorporated into the presses. Third, I have cleans as a pull so I think that makes up for shoulders not being targeted in every push session.
Pull- Back w, back t, biceps, hams, traps.
Okay, I’m explaining this like shit. Let me just write it out.
I try to get a PR every time (either more reps or more weight…or both). RP= rest paused.
Monday:
Pull A
Deadlift- 6-9 reps (straight, no RP, 4 warmups)
Weighted Chins- 11-15 RP (3-4 warmups)
BB curls- 11-20 RP (4 warmups)
Wednesday:
Push A
Squat- 4-8; 20 widowmaker
Flat bench- 11-15 RP (3-4 warmups)
Military Press- 11-20 RP (3-4 warmups)
Friday:
Pull B
Cleans- 6-9 straight
BB Rows- 6-9; 9-12
Hammer Curls- 11-20 (some forced/cheat reps)
Monday:
Push B
Front Squat- 6-10 (no widowmaker here)
Incline BB Bench- 11-15 RP
Weighted Dips- 11-20 RP
Remember, I don’t have any machines. So, that drove my exercise selection.
So, I wanted a consolidated routine that:
focused on compounds and free weights
focused on PRs to measure progression
was a 2-way split (for frequency purposes)
was intense and simple
hit everything
I figure if I can hit PRs consistently and eat I will grow.
I think this does it but I’m curious as to any comments.
That looks alright to me, it’s not DC but anything that focuses on recovery and progression will work.
Alright. Arthur Jones’ work that I’ve seen was usually between 12-16 exercises done full body in a near circuit fashion(as fast as possible). Something like
Leg Extension
Squats
Leg Curls
Stiff Leg Dead
Nautilus Chest Machine(fly)
Chest Machine Press
Pullover
Pulldown
Lateral Raise
Machine Overhead Press
Nautilus Curl
Dips
would be a normal workout. All to failure and done on a MWF schedule. Some might be able to have kept that pace up but my god that would crush a mortal trainer. I can not, no way shape or form do an all out set of squats to failure pre exhausted by leg extensions or leg presses Monday and come do it again Wednesday better. That’s the point of training is to do a little more, weight, reps, volume if you chose… but better the next time. His frequency too high and it doesn’t allow for consistent long term progression. Not to mention the total wimpy weights someone would be forced to use after the first few exercises because of overall fatigue.
If your chest would get as big as it possibly could the day you could incline press 425x12 reps… why in the world would doing 255x12 because you pre exhausted your chest and are still sucking wind from all out squats help?
Too many growth phases attempted to be able to adequately recover in my opinion.
Mentzer originally had the right idea… going to failure on a more frequent(albeit less frequent than Jones) schedule and getting stronger every time. I believe his first programs were 2 way splits done EOD, that would work for many. However he became obsessed with recovery and severely underestimated the bodies ability to adapt. He had some people training every 14 days or less… bodyparts getting hit less than once a month. Now of course someone will be recovered and be able to progress but what’s the point if you only progress 12 times a year? He started throwing every intensity technique in the books at people, RP, forced reps, heavy negatives, pre exhaust. All of those can blast a muscle but it left his trainees so overtained that they only could train once a week.
Not enough growth phases over periods of time.
As far as DC Dante wanted to do this…
"so in simple terms I am using techniques with extreme high intensity(rest pause) which i feel make a persons strength go up as quickly as possible + low volume so i can (recover) as quickly as possible with as many growth phases (damage/remodel/recover)I can do in a years time "
Progressing on key exercises as often and rapidly as possible over the long term.
what about Ray Menzter, in the beginning of his last book it claims thanks to hit training protocol he achieved something like 250lbs of ripped muscle.
Ray and Mike were impressive physically but both built their mass on regular volume training and Mike never produced 1(and don’t even say Dorian) successful bodybuilder I’m aware of with his methods either.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Scott M wrote:
DC is a bodybuilding program plane and simple… it uses strength gains to elicit growth but it is for muscular size gains only.
Not that it’s bad but methods based on fatigue/exhaustion (training to failure and rest/pause stuff) are really methods of increasing strength, not for hypertrophy. Remember that DC was a strength training person before a bodybuilder.[/quote]
Since when is training based on fatigue/exhaustion NOT a part of bodybuilding? Since Chad Waterbury invented it?
Sounds like someone needs to go do some reading before the click “reply” again.
Actually myself I only employ a couple of the key DC ideas rather than the whole package.
But of those ideas, what I think is a great feature that seems better than other intensification methods is the protocol of (for example, specifics may vary) doing in the work set absolutely as many reps as possible when doing them properly; then resting 10 seconds and then doing as many more as possibly properly; then resting 15 seconds and again doing as many more as possible properly; then on that last rep, if the contracted position is under tension, holding that for as long as possible or up to say 20 seconds and then doing the eccentric as slow as possible.
Then, if applicable, holding a stretch.
Or in some cases “resting” at the stretch position for 20 seconds at a time and then doing whatever further reps are possible, and repeating as much as possible.
Compared to more traditional rest pause (e.g. 6 seconds and do one additional rep, then 6 seconds more and do one additional rep, etc.) this is more like “doing three sets” in terms of how much is being accomplished in the latter parts or, if you disagree with that view of it or if that has nothing to do with it, just works better.
That’s how I’ve viewed it… like doing the best of 3 sets(the failure reps) with the volume of 1 to recover quick enough to do it again soon.
Lorisco,
I don’t know if you saw my edit or just chose to ignore it but I would like to see where Dante was a strength trainer if you don’t mind.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
That’s how I’ve viewed it… like doing the best of 3 sets(the failure reps) with the volume of 1 to recover quick enough to do it again soon.
Lorisco,
I don’t know if you saw my edit or just chose to ignore it but I would like to see where Dante was a strength trainer if you don’t mind. [/quote]
Sorry, I missed that. My understanding was that Dante Trudel (founder of DC) was a powerlifter and a trainer of power lifters prior to DC.