I’ve been saying on your site for YEARS not to go to failure.
You asked me to define it the way I perceived it through Jones, Darden’s, and Mentzer’s writings and conversations. I only trained in that gut-wrenching, draining style for a few years mostly with Heavy Duty I and II type routines. I could only tolerate those 12-14 exercise, full body workouts 3 days a week for a month at the most. And I was a very young guy then, about 20 years old.
Two different matters.
True yes, all HIT before was really maximum intensity. Everything was failure failure failure or beyond even. I think what you guys are doing now is what it should be and should have been “high” intensity not "maximum blow out an artery’ intensity.
I think he just wanted to get a sense of what else is needed to have a “complete training system”. That is certainly what I wanted to know. Just broad strokes, not every detail: what else needs to be added?
No, you were critical of what I recounted of MY experience with Jones, Darden, and the Mentzer.
I think we need to be careful not to attempt to rewrite history.
One thing I didn’t see in the initial statement was any indication of purpose or objective. Is HIT a bodybuilding program or a strength program, or both? Or do HIT people think that is a meaningless distinction? By breaking a program down into body part blocks, it is going to look like bodybuilding to many. But that does fit with Jones’ interest in building machines to isolate body parts, even though he seemed to somewhat treat strength and size as the same thing.
No, you were critical of what I recounted of MY experience with Jones, Darden, and the Mentzer.
It was confusing you were being told something differently or contrary to the many books and articles by the men above - who explicitly wrote about gut-busting, all out intensity of effort.
And while I know you said your conversations with Mentzer was in the 70s, mine was in the 1990s as you know and the dozens of conversations I had with him was basically to the tee of his HD I and II books. Brutal effort and 100% intensity was required to stimulate a size and strength increase. The last ‘impossible’ rep was literally responsible for flipping on the switch in the growth machinery. All three men basically wrote about this for a long time.
Tim, did you happen to know of a guy named Dave Staplin? I used to talk to him around the late 90s to around 2000. He was writing a few articles around the time while was heading off to med school. But, the last time I talked to him he turned away from HIT and made some new progress going back to volume again.
That’s what I’m most interested in. Most bang for your buck or most efficient way to train. Now I get that will change but I think what you and Dr Darden are doing is amazing. Never stop learning and adapting. I’m very much enjoying the Surge Challenge!
Thanks for the clarification I truly wasn’t sure what you meant.
You and Darden should write it…it will be accepted
Side note - Scott Wilson was one impressive dude!
I understand the books you’ve read and what Mike Menzer told you on the phone in the 1990s differ from what I’ve reported. So what?
Can’t you find something useful in all of it?
Let’s move on.
You call Option 1 the Standard. I call it The Old Standard.
The empirical opinion among those who have tried and used HIT for years (at least among long-time members of this group), was that the Forced-Fail last rep was a drain on recovery resources and NOT productive from a Cost-Benefit view of exercise and recovery.
These Failed-Rep set enders have their place. That place is part of Bodypart Specialization or End Of Cycle workouts. It is NOT every exercise of every workout. Turning the valve to ‘11’ each and every workout was something I thought many of us — and very importantly Dr. D — had moved away from years ago.
How’s this?
*Failure 1: After completing your last full repetition in good form, you reach Failure 1 by attempting but not being able to complete another full repetition (Failed Rep). Furthermore, it must be impossible to move the resistance, which will occur somewhere between the bottom and top positions. Ending a set with a Failed Rep is the original standard.
*Failure 2 (Arthur-Jones style): Trainees who are confident that they’ve achieved their last complete repetition in good form may opt-out of doing a Failed Rep. This practice is considered a new HIT standard.
I always thought it was mainly the intensity that set HIT apart from other training methods, ie going to failure or beyond - that intensity compensated for the lack of work sets / time under tension. If we are saying failure is not necessary, then how is it different? I am sure most people who train hard and class themselves as a bodybuilder will work up to the point they would probably fail another rep, yet they do more works sets. Without to failure or beyond, it just seems like an easier option.
It is an easier option because it doesn’t over stress your central nervous system. In other words: train smarter, not harder.
Intensity (effort) and form need to be balanced against one another with no apparent winner. Otherwise, you get HIT "intensity porn". [1]
Ho, I actually practice both ways. The first one happens to me often, especially when I train for the Upper Body with Machines or Dumbbells. And the second is when I train with Barbells - Squats and Bench Presses. It is logical to be so, especially if you are without an assistant.
What about deep inroad, in the absence of failure (e.g., doing a long series of drop sets where you stop a couple reps short of failure): How does that affect the CNS?
Al- Not nearly as bad, that’s the exact thing I mentioned in a recent post here (non failure drop sets) that I have done that was worked well and didn’t wipe me out as bad as a single set to actual failure (and it worked better too)
Hey Tim,
I’d actually give Darden the credit for the “failure 2” ideas. Everything we’ve seen from Jones (except that one quote where he said he himself knows when he will hit failure) has been telling others to actually perform that failed rep. Even a few quotes from his Nautilus Bulletin advises people to perform the failed rep, ‘utter failure’ etc. So I think it would be more like the above here.
From Nautilus Bulletin #1
The number of repetitions in each set should be limited to about ten - with the exception of
squats, which should be performed for twenty repetitions; but after a normal break-in period,
each set of each exercise should be a maximum possible effort, leading to a point of
momentary muscular failure
Then - INSTANTLY - do a set of about ten repetitions of behind-neck presses; with a fairly
narrow (slightly wider than shoulder width) grip. And, again, carry this exercise to the point of
utter failure.
But simply working a muscle in its position of full contraction is not enough; while in that
position, it must be worked to a point of momentary failure.