212 579 9320
(Arthur Jones circa 1960 on his Nautilus shoulder lateral raise/overhead press combo piece. A shoulder killer if ever there was one.)
As many of you know, I have been an advocate of high intensity training (HIT) for many years. But I wasn’t always one.
It all started in the early 1980′s when I happened to walk into a gym in Verona New Jersey called Powerflex Nautilus. In it were a vast array of giant blue machines that looked like prehistoric torture devices.
The workouts I had at this chamber of pain and torture are unforgettable. My muscles grew faster and stronger in a few weeks doing a 20 minute workout, twice a week than they had in the few years with free weights using Arnold’s advice of nearly everyday, hour long, multiple set training sessions.
Here I am at about 16 after a few weeks of Nautilus training (note that I was a skinny, ectomorphish kid):
I loved my new muscles (and so did the girls) and from then on I was hooked – I became a HITer.
As the years rolled on, I read everything on the subject I could get my hands on. I became a brain on the subject as best as I knew how. But after a few years of training using HIT, I was still unsatisfied with my physique – envying those who were far more mesomorphic than I was. Mesomorphs are people who have a stocky, naturally muscled body even without weight training (here is an example of the three different somatoypes):
What I didn’t know then was that no matter what I did I could not have a densely muscled, thick boned, stocky and powerful build. Asking the body builders in the gyms I frequented what I should do to get bowling ball shoulders and a neck as thick as a telephone pole, I went back to training using high volume, free weight, multiple set workouts. I didn’t get worse results, but they sure weren’t any better. And I had a lot more joint pain and muscle discomfort. And of course, I never, ever considered using drugs.
I had come to realize that after a certain point in training, genetics dictate your physique. Reality set in. So I went back to my HIT training and have continued to train clients and myself using HIT ever since. It works and works more effectively and efficiently than any other form of resistance training.
Back to Arthur Jones. A recent paper By Dave Smith and Stewart Bruce-Low took a look at all of the available scientific evidence on weight training to see if in fact Arthur Jones’ opinions and declarations about resistance training were correct. What they discovered was that for the most part he was. In sum, research indicates that the best way to perform resistance training is as follows:
*Single sets of each exercise performed to muscle failure in ~40-90 seconds
*One to two weekly sessions
*Brief workouts lasting no more than 30 minutes
*Slow and controlled repetition tempo
Arthur Jones had been saying this for several decades. And no – this was not said to sell his new machines as he advocated this regimen of training for the use of free weights or any other type of resistance training equipment. So for all you AJ naysayers out there, take a good read of this very well done paper and perhaps give HIT training a go.
The research used in the Smith-Low analysis was part of what Drs. Eades and I used (as well as our practical experiences as health professionals) to formulate our ideas for our book The Slow Burn Fitness Revolution: The Slow Motion Exercise That Will Change Your Body in 30 Minutes a Week
My friend Tim Ferris personally experienced the vast physical benefits of Arthur Jones’ insights gaining 34 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks. Yes, diet plays a big factor in gaining this much muscle in such a short time. Still, without the training no muscle would have been built at all. And I have yet to read a study that produced results like Tim’s using a conventional body building approach.
Recently a couple of exercise physiologists ripped into our book claiming we made fraudulent statements, told lies and bashed and trashed various forms of physical activities. Here’s an excerpt:
The book makes extraordinary claims…trashes other forms of exercise and activities like running, golfing, skiing, tennis, raquetball, and basketball…
I don’t think we mentioned most of these sports in our book at all let alone bashed them.
The rhetoric they use in their review is shameful. It’s a long winded, snarky, lie-filled review that is an embarrassment to the field. They implied we were trying to hoodwink people into buying into our philosophy by making up facts – a philosophy that isn’t ours in the first place. It’s a training philosophy that strength and fitness enthusiasts have used for decades. How absurd is this idea anyway? As if we’d put our reputations and careers on the line for a book.
One of the authors, Jeff Thiboutot, is apparently not only unaware of the scientific literature on the subject (Jeff admitted to reading the Bruce-Low paper just a few weeks ago), but in writing their rude and lie-filled diatribe, they throw stones while living in a glass house. But I don’t have the desire to do to their book what they did to mine, albeit without resorting to strawman arguments, logical fallacies, lies and the other nonsense they used to discredit our book and our characters.
For example, in their review they said:
I agree weight training will build muscle better than aerobics (possibly not for maintenance, however)
Here they suggest that aerobic exercise is better than weight training for maintaining muscle mass. I hate to tell you this guys but that is an absurd statement if ever there was one – one that is completely unsupportable.
But I digress.
Arthur Jones was a pioneer of the fitness industry and truth be told, the industry exists in large part because of him. More and more research is coming out that supports the less is more approach to resistance training and the fact that resistance training is the only form of exercise you need to obtain the benefits that exercise can bestow. Jack LaLanne was certainly a fitness pioneer in many ways, but comparatively speaking, he was no match for Arthur’s intellect on training.
I've been involved in exercise ever since I became a member of The Charles Atlas Club when I was 10 years old. In 1998, I founded and established Serious Strength on the Upper West Side of NYC. My clients include kids, seniors (and everyone in between), top CEOs, celebrities, bestselling authors, journalists and TV personalities.
Strong Kids Healthy Kids
Euphoria Olive Oil
Michael & MaryDan Eades M.D.: Protein Power Lifeplan
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
See now Fred. If you were to shave your head in that youthful photo, I think you might look like Colpo after all . . .
Funny Joe.
Fred –
This is a great website. I recently picked up your book (Slowburn) – and Dr McGuff’s book (BDS) and and I am quite amazed – if it is all just HALF true, this slow fitness thing is a real winner.
I spent the past year or so losing 60 lbs (20 more to go) by simply avoiding processed carbs *most* of the time. In the past I lost 50 on Atkins – it works, but I found out that I have to keep restricting the garbage to maintain it. It is not hard. Proper low carb works great, and is very sustainable.
I did the P90X route – spent about 6 months faithfully executing it, but the results were not all that exciting. The time commit is pretty high too, so much so, that it seems to take over. Not good.
I have a little more investigation to do before I start off.
Couple questions –
I’m 48, how long does it normally take for a subject to notice changes in strength or appearance?
For getting those pesky last 20 pounds off, is there a optimum approach you would recommend?
Thanks again for sharing the book with us.
Hi Mike and thanks for the kind words.
You asked how long it will take to see bodily changes from weight training. Well, it really depends on genetics, how hard you are willing to train, how consistently you train and if your hormone panel is adequate.
If you are eating enough fatty protein – for you ~150 – 200 grams a day, you should see a difference in size and tone in a month training 2X per week. Make sure to get the weights right so that you are reaching true muscle failure in 40-90 seconds.
To get the last 20 off, stay the low carb course. No grains or starches EVER. No alcohol. Drink lots of cool water and get sound, deep sleep.
Let me know if I can be of more help!
Great write up. And I like the link to the article Strength Training and Arthur Jones. Very informative.
I am of the practical side. Doing multiple sets and many reps just guarantees that I will not stick to the program. I do a once a week routine of about 11 exercises, about 40 minutes. I do them all to failure and I rest the other days. This works for me. For myself, I don’t even need any further data then the lessened risk of injury.
Also, just as a side note, internal martial arts like Tai Chi Chuan are practiced slowly for fast execution in fighting. So HIT and such like are not the only system for physical gains via the slow route.
Great article Fred, thank you for the link to the article. Love the resources and references.
Keep up the great work!
In health,
Brandon
“The workouts I had at this chamber of pain and torture are unforgettable. My muscles grew faster and stronger in a few weeks doing a 20 minute workout, twice a week than they had in the few years with free weights using Arnold’s advice of nearly everyday, hour long, multiple set training sessions.”
Well, yeah, if you’re Arnold and taking steroids and did nothing for a living but lift weights, then this workout is ideal. I take my cue from Steve Reeves, Mike Mentzer and Lee Labrada:
As heavy as you can.
As good as form as you can.
As many reps as you can.
Those tenets are also shouted from the roof top in Dr. Thomas De Lorme’s “Progressive Resistance Exercise”, written all the way back in 1951. While the medical community laughed them out the door back then, this book is considered the fore bearer of modern PT and fitness training in general.
Anyone following Arnold’s routine with out the chemical assistance that he had is committing suicide.
For transparency, I (Jeff) am one of the “young men”, thank you Fred, that wrote the review of Slow Burn. Fred, if you are going to try to show that we are clueless about the “literature on the subject” can you at least get your facts right. First, “they” didn’t admit anything, I (Jeff) did. Second, I said “Thanks for posting that paper. I actually read it a few weeks ago, I thought it was a good paper”. How did a few WEEKS turn into a few DAYS? For those of you who want to see who is correct you can go and read it yourself in the comments section for the in-depth review post at our blog. Somehow because I read this ONE paper a few WEEKS ago that equates to being unaware of the scientific literature on the subject matter. Really? So the HUNDREDS of papers that I have read and the Masters degree I have in exercise science, and being a certified trainer for 15 years all clearly points to my ignorance of the subject matter. Maybe none of that matters and I am a complete idiot and don’t know shit about the subject. Even if that was true, which is highly doubtful, it still doesn’t, in anyway, have any relevance when it comes to judging whether the information we presented regarding the Slow Burn book is valid or not. For those of you reading this I encourage you to make an informed decision by actually reading the three posts, (Part 1: “Fred Hahn’s Slow Burn Fitness Revolution”, Part 2: “Fred Hahn’s “Slow Burn Fitness Revolution” book– PART 2: An In-Depth Analysis” & the post “Fred Hahn calls WebMD “Web Mindless Drivel” which are at our blog http://www.SPEEDweightlossbook.com) ENTIRELY, and if you have time the comment section, AND THEN DECIDE if Matt and I have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter or not and if our critiques of Slow Burn and Fred Hahn are “shameful…long winded, snarky, lie-filled review that is an embarrassment to the field” or if they are actually a clear, logical and well-supported critique of the information presented in the book Slow Burn. You are welcome to post your thoughts, positive or negative in the comments section of the aforementioned posts.
Finally, I would highly recommend you read the Smith et al paper that Fred mentions in this post. Read it thoroughly and pay close attention to the section called, Speed of Movement During Exercise.
If there was three things that I took away from reading about Arthur Jones is that
1. the one thing he regrets more then anything during his life of fitness was that when he was young he believed he destroyed his nervous system by working out too much, this is why he came up with the “hit” as a way of cutting back on the frequency of the workouts but increasing it’s intensity. He observed animals in the wild and noted that the male Tiger, one of the strongest animals and fastest animals,basically “lounged” around for about 98% of the time with 2% of the time engaged in high intensity killing of prey. I think he owned a couple of them.
2. Jones himself ,was a very intense man, (scary at times)and tried everything too convince people that his way was the only way. He was against any drug use (steroids) and refused to train anybody who was on them, and yet one of his most prized pupils was Sergio Oliva ,who not only was genetically gifted, but allegedly was known to take steroids. Some people think Jones refused to hear the truth.
3. One more thing that stood out ,Arnold Schwarzenegger was invited to come and train with Jones one day. The story goes that Arnold puked, left out the back door and never came back.
Highly recommend anybody who loves fitness to read up on this man, he was truly a pioneer of his times!
hey Jeff, I have read Fred’s books and own them, and I have read Dr’s Eades books and countless other books and you are way off. Fred’s book dosen’t “trash” running or other sports, he mentions that you can do them, but if you are looking at a way to just get “fit” there are better ways that provide a safe and more efficient way of getting healthy. His explanations of how glucose works and that a good diet is fundamental is bang on and takes it further in his book for youth. I don’t even think you read his book and for some reason the way you review was written ,have a personnal vendetta. Secondly, I have done Fred’s workouts and they WORK!. I have done workouts my whole life ( sorry no degree though) and by far this is most efficient and result oriented out there. Period.
Jeff said:
“For transparency, I (Jeff) am one of the “young men”, thank you Fred, that wrote the review of Slow Burn. Fred,”
Why are you thanking me? You are young.
“if you are going to try to show that we are clueless about the “literature on the subject” can you at least get your facts right. First, “they” didn’t admit anything, I (Jeff) did. ”
I stand corrected. It is true that YOU were the one who said that not Matt. I’ll make the change in the blog post.
“Second, I said “Thanks for posting that paper. I actually read it a few weeks ago, I thought it was a good paper”. How did a few WEEKS turn into a few DAYS?”
I stand corrected. I will make the change on the blog post.
“For those of you who want to see who is correct you can go and read it yourself in the comments section for the in-depth review post at our blog. Somehow because I read this ONE paper a few WEEKS ago that equates to being unaware of the scientific literature on the subject matter. Really? So the HUNDREDS of papers that I have read and the Masters degree I have in exercise science, and being a certified trainer for 15 years all clearly points to my ignorance of the subject matter.”
Your degree, certification and experience and the hundreds f papers you’ve read clearly did not help you in your review of my book. You told lies, used strawmen arguments and clearly were unaware of several papers that support the Slow Burn, HIT approach to resistance training. You even said in one of your responses to me something to the effect of “Tell us Fred how much muscle a person can build doing SB 1-2X a week. I’ll tell you not much.” Your ignorance on the subject of HIT is staggering.
“Maybe none of that matters and I am a complete idiot and don’t know shit about the subject. Even if that was true, which is highly doubtful, it still doesn’t, in anyway, have any relevance when it comes to judging whether the information we presented regarding the Slow Burn book is valid or not.”
Say what? Let me get this straight – are you suggesting that, even though you know little to nothing about a subject you are still qualified to write about it? If that’s what you mean, that’s absurd.
And I am not suggesting you are uneducated on the subject of exercise. Clearly you know something about it. You probably know more than I do about certain areas and aspects of physiology. But in your review you make many statements that expose your naivety on the subject of resistance training – not to mention the outright lies you told (I gave an example above) which then makes anything you say suspect.
I will freely admit that there are some errors in my book but there are errors in EVERY book ever written. This does not change the fact that HIT is profoundly beneficial and that the preponderance of the scientific literature supports HIT as an exercise modality that provides and produces all the benefits mentioned in Slow Burn.
“For those of you reading this I encourage you to make an informed decision by actually reading the three posts, (Part 1: “Fred Hahn’s Slow Burn Fitness Revolution”, Part 2: “Fred Hahn’s “Slow Burn Fitness Revolution” book– PART 2: An In-Depth Analysis” & the post “Fred Hahn calls WebMD “Web Mindless Drivel” which are at our blog http://www.SPEEDweightlossbook.com) ENTIRELY, and if you have time the comment section, AND THEN DECIDE if Matt and I have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter or not and if our critiques of Slow Burn and Fred Hahn are “shameful…long winded, snarky, lie-filled review that is an embarrassment to the field” or if they are actually a clear, logical and well-supported critique of the information presented in the book Slow Burn.”
I hope everyone DOES read your review Jeff because those who read it and have experience with Slow Burn training will get a good hardy belly laugh from it. They will come away realizing that you and Matt are not only misinformed, but liars as well.
Be informed that Jeff (and I am assuming Matt) altered their blog on SB on one occasion that I know of, changing their wording about my book from this:
“If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel it’s a piece of crap.”
To this:
“If you don’t want to read the entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel that this book is filled with misleading, incorrect and unsubstantiated claims regarding the benefits of a type of exercise referred to as Slow Burn. Therefore, it is not worth reading.”
They changed their wording of this paragraph after a very well respected scientist withdrew his endorsement of their book SPEED due to the unprofessional nature of their Slow Burn review. So be aware that they have MAY have removed or changed more of their snarky, nasty tonality from the original post. I am NOT saying they did mind you – only that they may have. We know they lie – this statement is at the beginning of their SB review):
“The book makes extraordinary claims about the benefits of super slow exercise, trashes other forms of exercise and activities like running, golfing, skiing, tennis, raquetball, and basketball…”
Not only do we not discuss Super Slow once in the book, aside from jogging (we said it was damaging to the body and it is) we don’t even mention these other sports let alone trash them. So given the fact that they ARE liars, what else about what they say can you believe?
And again, I freely admit there are some errors WRT mitochondria and AMPK that got by our radar screen somehow. But to imply that we purposefully wrote this to hoodwink people is absurd and libelous.
“You are welcome to post your thoughts, positive or negative in the comments section of the aforementioned posts. Finally, I would highly recommend you read the Smith et al paper that Fred mentions in this post. Read it thoroughly and pay close attention to the section called, Speed of Movement During Exercise.”
You should have elaborated here Jeff. We don’t know what you mean exactly. Pay attention to it? Let me post it here:
Speed Of Movement During Exercise
It is commonly suggested by various weight-training authorities (8-12) that to optimally increase muscle strength and (particularly) power, weight-training exercises be performed explosively (i.e. with a relatively fast speed of movement). This, such sources suggest, will lead to greater increases in muscle strength and
power than if exercises are performed using a relatively slow, controlled cadence. However, Jones (17,18) advocated a relatively slow lifting speed to reduce momentum and increase muscle tension. He stated (18), “At the start of the first repetition, muscular contraction should be produced gradually, and should be
slowly increased until the start of movement is produced. Once movement at a slow speed has started, the level of effort should remain just high enough to continue slow movement. Do not increase the speed as movement continues” (p. 44). In practical terms, according to Jones’ former Director of Research, Ellington Darden (24), on most exercises such advice translates into duration of at least two seconds for the lifting of the weight and four seconds for the lowering of the weight. Jones (17) argued that such a training style would lead to optimal increases in strength, power and muscle size, and should be coupled with much practice of the specific skill to be performed to optimise sports performance. ”
What you fail to be able to do Jeff is to put pieces of a puzzle together. You have to think a bit more deeply on a subject in order to glean hidden evidence of what may lie underneath the surface. Let’s take this statement as an example:
“At the start of the first repetition, muscular contraction should be produced gradually, and should be slowly increased until the start of movement is produced. Once movement at a slow speed has started, the level of effort should remain just high enough to continue slow movement. Do not increase the speed as movement continues” (p. 44). In practical terms, according to Jones’ former Director of Research, Ellington Darden (24), on most exercises such advice translates into duration of at least two seconds for the lifting of the weight and four seconds for the lowering of the weight. ”
OK now think for a second Jeff – don’t just take the 2 up, 4 down rep recommendation as gospel. Read between the lines here. If, as Darden and Jones suggest, that the start of a repetition “should be produced gradually and should be slowly increased until the start of movement is produced and once movement at a slow speed has started, the level of effort should remain just high enough to continue slow movement and do NOT (bolding is mine) increase the speed…”, would this really translate into a 2 second positive? Of course not. If you were told to get on an exercise machine and asked to follow the above instruction to the letter, how fast would a rep actually be? A lot slower than 2 seconds I can tell you that.
The 2 up 4 down Nautilus protocol was a completely arbitrary recommendation and certainly does not coincide with their statement – not in my opinion at least. Of course it is open to interpretation but I think anyone who reads this carefully would agree.
And let’s not forget the several studies performed by Dr. Wayne Westcott which indicated that a 10/4 and 4/10 rep tempo were both superior to 2/4. And since 10/4 was superior to 2/4 and 4/10 was superior to 10/4, this means that 10/10 is probably superior to them all for the reasons mentioned in the Smith-Low paper.
Both you and Matt used a couple of studies to discredit Slow Burn that tested what they called Super Slow against a “‘normal” rep tempo. These researchers found that the slow rep tempo was inferior. But both of you failed to realize that the percent 1RM used for the slow groups were so low they didn’t even keep the slow subjects within the anaerobic range. So, reading the hundreds of studies you say you have has done you little good at understanding research. It’s not the quantity of studies you read Jeff, but how well you are able to read and understand them that matters most.
Again, you have to think more deeply and clearly about a subject or paper to glean deeper data. And for those who don’t know this, Dr. Darden is a staunch advocate of slow rep training and has written that he feels it is a superior way to perform a set of an exercise compared to conventional (2/4) training tempo. In fact, a few weeks ago we were discussing neck training and he suggested I try a 30/30 rep speed to spark further growth in my neck. Just sayin…
More from the paper:
“Overall, therefore, it appears that Jones’ (17,18) recommendation that slow, controlled weight training is all that is necessary to enhance both muscle strength and power is correct. Studies have tended to suggest that either slow training is superior to explosive training in enhancing these factors, or that there is no difference between slow and fast speeds. Despite claims made in some strength training textbooks (8,9) and by some exercise certification organisations (11,12) there is no scientific evidence to support the view that resistance exercise performed at very fast speeds is superior for enhancing any aspect of muscle function. ”
So Jeff, let’s hear what tempo you currently use when training your clients. Please tell us how many sets you recommend? In your book you say “1-3.” If you are so staunchly married to obeying science when making recommendations on training, why do you recommend more than one set of an exercise when there is little scientific evidence to support multiple sets? The only logical answer is that you either purposefully want to waste your clients time (unlikely) or, you are unaware of the scientific evidence on the subject. Maybe you are suggesting that your practical experience tells you differently? If so, I can respect that.
well it’s good to see you take over the debate with intelligence, style and class, Fred!
Did you steal this guy’s date in High School or something?
P.S.
had to give away a ton of my favorite clothes today because of you! They are all too BIG!
Ramona
You’re welcome Ramona!
Is this Ramona Denton or Ramona Graham?
They did alter it. Now your comments on the crap thing look out of place. A search on Google of “book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel it’s a piece of crap” currently reveals:
Fred Hahn’s Slow Burn Fitness Revolution – review by Matt …
Dec 21, 2010… entire article and you just want to know what we think of the book and its recommendations, here you go; We feel it’s a piece of crap.” …
speedweightlossbook.com/…/fred-hahns-slow-burn-fitness-revolution/ – Cached
Opps!
There’s more than one Ramona here? Je ne lecroix pas! It’s Ramona Graham!
I can’t tell you how fascinating I find this whole thing.
I was never even INTO exercise. A couple of years ago my friend invited me to a Les Mills dance workout, called Jam. I found it such a huge stress reliever, and so fun, I actually joined her gym! I started going to many different classes, I loved them, and I think I got in better shape… I don’t even know. I wasn’t worried about that at the time. Just going for the fun.
Well my gym just shut down one day and claimed bankruptcy. There went that.
I joined the local parks and rec system and started doing exercise on my own. I wanted the freedom to just run in the park, or whatever. No more classes, as fun as they were! I really fell in love with running. But it hurt my knees. I tried the elliptical machine, and found it didn’t hurt. I kept going more and more, working out with more and more frequency, driving to the gym, driving home, it was too much!
Since I work in a bookstore, I saw your book, Fred, so I took it home (we can do that, you know, borrow books, so we can recommend them later). I was fascinated by what I read. It was different but it made sense. Why were so many people at both gyms doing cardio all the time and not losing weight? I’d even hear them sometimes, lamenting. Me, too. I worked out and worked out but I wasn’t really seeing massive changes. Being the daughter of an astronomer, I wanted to test what you said myself. I wanted to know if the science behind it was true.
So I started using your method. The hardest part? NOT working out every day. I love working out, it gives me a surge! I wanted to know, however, if it was true. Not just for me, but for all the people I know who really ARE obese and who are putting themselves in danger because of it. If I could prove to myself this was real, I could convince others!
So I’ve been trying it for a few months. It’s a great workout, I really feel it…! It’s intense and powerful. Since that time, I started actually losing weight! I am not sure when I last weighed this little, but it was certainly in high school. Not only that, I feel so much stronger! I can lift things that used to challenge me, I just FEEL stronger! How cool is that? My immune system seems to have improved… I went through the entire winter surrounded by sick people and never got so much as a cold!
So, I am grateful to you for sharing this system with the world. Thank you, Fred!
As for your critics, well… I’m sure they think they are right. I’m just glad you know they are not!
Thank you!!!!!
Ramona Graham
Right. They got called out on this and then altered it. They claimed that their wording was acceptable, but changed it anyway.
They also altered their book subtitle.
Ramona – I am tickled pink by your testimonial. And your experience mimics so many others who have seriously given SB a run for the money.
I’m really happy you are enjoying the benefits of HIT. And I apologize for costing you your wardrobe!
Ok Jeff(and Matt),
I did read all the posts ENTIRELY – how painful it ever was – and I did DECIDE:
You don’t!
Franco – Could you elaborate? They don’t what?
He was responding to this:
… AND THEN DECIDE if Matt and I have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter or not and if our critiques of Slow Burn and Fred Hahn are “shameful…long winded, snarky, lie-filled review that is an embarrassment to the field” or if they are actually a clear, logical and well-supported critique of the information presented in the book Slow Burn.”
Hey, Fred!
I may have actually been in that Verona, NJ facility many years ago when me and my friends would look for the best places to workout as teenagers.
Keep up your great discussions. You bring a clear, rational head to a world of hyperbole, ranting, and steroids.
Sean got it right, he asked “… AND THEN DECIDE if Matt and I have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter or not …” and I did answer.
Thanks Bill – I didn’t know you lived so close to that area! It was on Bloomfield Ave I believe.
Arthur Jones was a piece of sh!t. You’re seriously trying to compare LaLanne to him? LaLanne destroyed him in every f*cking aspect. It’s obvious if you wanna get better at something, you do more of it; not less lol wtf. You want bigger calves? Train them 6x a week and stop being a pussy.
Xaevin – The word f**k has a u and a c in between the f and k. And let’s see a pic of you tough guy. My guess is you haven’t the guts to post it.
Hey fred, im quite a knowledgeable bodybuilder, but you never know everything allways learning. Im new to the H.I.T i tried it once before but didnt have the mental attitude and didnt see much or anygains. I resorted back to 3 sets and 3 exercises for each muscle low volume training, Ive recently came back onto hit mentally prepared and understanding that less is more in the aspect of muscle building. After my workouts i realise that i havent got muscle ache or muscle pain which is a good sign the muscles are repairing. I dont feel much doing this type of training for 1-2 sets to ”TOTAL” failure.. Is this correct? because on normal training i would feel the muscle ache the next day. Is volume training better for me? is the muscle pain a good thing or can you gain without feeling the pain the next day. Stupid question but its been playing on my mind thankyou for your time and patience.
Volume training isn’t better per se. Intensity is what recruits more fibers. I think you need to work out more often to be a body builder, but not as much as most bblders do.
Genetics rules the day. No type or amount of training can change that sad fact for those who wish to become very densely muscular.
Muscle pain and soreness, IMHO, has little to do with outcome. I train my calves / legs very hard to the point where I can barely walk or touch them at times and I still have sticks for legs but pretty good arm and chest development.
HIT is more efficient and I think more effective for body building. But you do have to put your all into it. If you can’t you’ll have to settle for volume and practically live in the gym to get results.