T Nation

Louie Simmons is Into H.I.T.


#1

I'm sorry for the name of the thread, but I wanted something to drag your atention to something I just realized.
First, I do not consider myself a Arthur Jones follower or anything.
I see over and over again discussion on training methods for strength, hypertrophy, etc... People say other people are stupid and other people say people are idiots but the real thing is:

Louie Simmons prescribes maximal effort method and dynamic effort to get the big lifts up, because of neurological reasons and skill, and for strengthen the muscles involved it's simply "repetitions to failure".
A lot of other people who says HIT is bullshit and heavy weights for low reps and no failure are the thing for strength, still prescribe assistance work wich is usually exercises to failure to work the muscles involved.

The thing is, this is exaclty what Arthur Jones said and Dr. Darden says. I'f your sport is heavy weightlifting, you practice that, and strenghten the muscles involves with repetitions to failure.

For now, let's forget about 1 set vs multiple sets because it doesn't really matter, it depends, even Jones sometimes prescribed more than one set.

Would appreciate your guys opinion.


#2

I don’t have anything against HIT other than the slow concentrics.


#3

[quote]Braccini wrote:
I’m sorry for the name of the thread, but I wanted something to drag your atention to something I just realized.
First, I do not consider myself a Arthur Jones follower or anything.
I see over and over again discussion on training methods for strength, hypertrophy, etc… People say other people are stupid and other people say people are idiots but the real thing is:

Louie Simmons prescribes maximal effort method and dynamic effort to get the big lifts up, because of neurological reasons and skill, and for strengthen the muscles involved it’s simply “repetitions to failure”.
A lot of other people who says HIT is bullshit and heavy weights for low reps and no failure are the thing for strength, still prescribe assistance work wich is usually exercises to failure to work the muscles involved.

The thing is, this is exaclty what Arthur Jones said and Dr. Darden says. I’f your sport is heavy weightlifting, you practice that, and strenghten the muscles involves with repetitions to failure.

For now, let’s forget about 1 set vs multiple sets because it doesn’t really matter, it depends, even Jones sometimes prescribed more than one set.

Would appreciate your guys opinion.[/quote]

He does’t use HIT as outlined by Dr. Darden and Arthur Jones. Anyway, much of the names for programs are semantics. Someone comes along, puts some slight twist on something and then applies a name for it.


#4

Any training style that focuses on 1 “method” and excludes others is going to take some heat. The perception is that HIT is all about 1 set till failure. People talk smack against only using the repetition method. People have read more critiques of Jones, that they have read actual Jones.

When people dis Westside, they always mention how all the singles, doubles and triples don’t build enough muscle. They just choose to forget that 80% of the work you’re suppossed to do is accessory work for higher reps.

You are on the right track. Look for the things that different training styles or programs have in common. Do those things.


#5

It’s an easy trap to fall into.

I’ve never tried a “Western Linear Periodization” plan. But I read Tate’s article bashing it back in 2001. So now I’m an expert about why linear legislation sucks.


#6

"Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. "

I’m not saying that I’m enlightened or anything, but after reading so much and trying everything and feeling pretty lost on what is best sometimes, it feels good to begin understanding that optimal training is actually more simple than it looks…


#7

Exactly!


#8

[quote]Braccini wrote:
"Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. "

I’m not saying that I’m enlightened or anything, but after reading so much and trying everything and feeling pretty lost on what is best sometimes, it feels good to begin understanding that optimal training is actually more simple than it looks…[/quote]
that is a great quote! On top of all the stuff to read, actually doing a given program is where I have those “a-ha!” moments. Sheiko’s programs a good example. they look nuts on paper, but do them and you see just as you start to burn out, the volume drops just enough to keep you moving. Someone really thought that shit through!


#9

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
You are on the right track. Look for the things that different training styles or programs have in common. Do those things.
[/quote]

This so much.

There is no magical combination of sets, reps and percentages that is going to unlock some sort of biological cheat code. Most of the successful routines ARE successful because people followed them with intensity and consistency.


#10

[quote]Braccini wrote:
I’m sorry for the name of the thread, but I wanted something to drag your atention to something I just realized.
First, I do not consider myself a Arthur Jones follower or anything.
I see over and over again discussion on training methods for strength, hypertrophy, etc… People say other people are stupid and other people say people are idiots but the real thing is:

Louie Simmons prescribes maximal effort method and dynamic effort to get the big lifts up, because of neurological reasons and skill, and for strengthen the muscles involved it’s simply “repetitions to failure”.
A lot of other people who says HIT is bullshit and heavy weights for low reps and no failure are the thing for strength, still prescribe assistance work wich is usually exercises to failure to work the muscles involved.

The thing is, this is exaclty what Arthur Jones said and Dr. Darden says. I’f your sport is heavy weightlifting, you practice that, and strenghten the muscles involves with repetitions to failure.

For now, let’s forget about 1 set vs multiple sets because it doesn’t really matter, it depends, even Jones sometimes prescribed more than one set.

Would appreciate your guys opinion.[/quote]

Louie Simmons was quoting one of the Russian’s (Zarkovski I think) who wrote a large summary of russian training methods. Zarkivski mentioned dynamic, maximal and repetition training and mentioned in his writings that repetition training had to be done to the point of fatigue or maybe failure to stress the most motor units.

Simmons really misinterpreted a lot of what he read about the russian training especially GPP and conjugate periodization though. According to Zarkovski, GPP was not “conditioning”. It was actually what Simmons calls SPP, like using a limited range of motion/partial reps. The reason that partial reps were considered to be GPP and not SPP by Zark, is that partials were less technically demanding and so they allowed more general, less movement specific strength development. (If you build stronger triceps with a lockout you can generalize that strength to other tricep based movements).

Simmons used different percetages. The Russians based everything off of a 90% max as being a 100% training max, and they most frequently used 4-7 reps per set on squats. The true weights that they used were typically between 60-80% of their competition max.

Simmons recommends against getting emotionally psyched up for a lift because the cortisol and adrenaline are catabolic.


#11

Great info dawg!
The SPP/GPP stuff is interesting.

I’d heard about Vasily marching in knee deep water, but never about the partials.

I love Anthony Ditillo’s old stuff. He loved partials and lockouts. I assumed all the power rack work was Ditillo trying out the Bob Hoffman/power rack/isometric stuff. I kinda figured this stuff was USA all the way. But Ditillo always said he was influenced his Soviet friend. Were the Soviets big into the power rack for partials too?