I started heavy duty this year. So far my lifts went up and so did my size.
Im quite happy with the program, but made some changes:
>I do 2 sets instead of one (Sorry Mike)
>I take only 1 dat of rest, because I feel I recover quite easily with the weights im currently lifting.
>I added abs, obliques and forearms workouts
Overall I keep the volume low and respect the rep ranges Mike said. I go to failure and I think is the main reason why HIT works. Also started loging my sessions on paper, so I can keep track.
What about you, anon?

>>77178226
It's simply more efficient regarding damaging your body to do fewer sets per session. If 1 set is 75% of max stimulation per 24h (Hypothetically but something like that) but 2 sets fucks you twice as much up, 1 set every day is strictly better than 2 sets every other day.

>>77178226
Yeah still doing it. Obviously not Mentzer's shit but closer to Doggcrapp lot of pause sets, using rep totals and partial rest, machine work as the base. It's working but load has to be really optimized to get away with doing that little.

File: mike-mentzer-routine.jpg (91.4 KB)

91.4 KB JPG

>>77178226
I've been running ideal routine and I like it but after awhile I'm at the point where legs and arms continue to go up but the prescribed chest/back exercises are starting to stall.
I had to move from the original 2 rest days to 3 rest days awhile back which helped but I'm hesitant to go to 5 rest days just yet since 3/4ths of my lifts are still climbing.
I will say that I got much more and immediate progress switching over, I always sorta felt like shit running 3x a week and I don't hate the gym now, just the enormity of the task (fuck doing 350lb LE hold superset backsquats to failure lmao) and I can get a workout done in less than 10 minutes if I'm on the ball and recovered.
Mike's old friend and the guy that ran his phone consults after '97, mr. america john heart has his own HIT routine that bumps up some upper body stuff to 2 sets and I'm thinking about going over to that.
THAT BEING SAID, the ideal routine itself has been solid if not outright clever, arm day being only once every 15 days but the chest/back day happens to work arm muscles as does vice versa like chest on arm day with the superset dips.

>>77178241
Noice, are you a new lifter or juicing? If it's the old actual HD programs you might hit a wall soon, you'll notice it in a multi-week plateau but once you pad in another rest day the progress will start again.

>>77178401
Just realized this image isn't the full ideal routine, I got the most out of supersetting machine shoulder press after side raises close-grip palms-in pulldowns after preacher curls (bb curls are too easy to cheat, forearm/brachialis action)

>>77178401
I follow the ideal routine but with the tweaks I mentioned here>>77178241.
I've been lifting since my teens (I'm almost 30) but only consistently for 2 years. No juice.
To be honest I reduced rest days because to me, lifting is my hobby and passion, so I have the need to do it. Rest days are tedious and boring to me, so I guess I will have to deal with it when the plateaus come

>>77178226
He built his size on higher volume Kek.


He only created this HIT garbage to make money out of lazy and overly minimalistic subhumans that don't actually enjoy the gym. People that swear by HIT usually look like DYELs and it's very often Millennials and Boomers with 14 inch arms and a gut.

>>77178545
If this is the cause, why is Dorian yates *to this day* coaching his clients with HIT principles? He just did an entire interview and in-field at his gym with Huberman a few months ago.
(Fuck hubermann btw)

>>77178716
Yates did more sets than Mike sold in his program.

Yates did "warm up sets" before his main set. And those warm up sets would kill an average gym goer anyway, since people usually don't train hard enough anyway.

Yates split is nothing more than a Brosplit but with actual effort put in.

>>77179122
It is said that different individuals have different recovery. Enhanced individuals, and elite BB have a better recovery ability, due to genetics and PED, therefore they can manage bigger volume.
HIT aims to do the optimal amount of work for muscle growth, which, acording to the principles, are fewer sets until muscle failure. More than what is necesary will not contribute to muscle growth

>>77178545
Use your judgement. Out of everyone you saw in the gym last time you used it, how many were doing not enough volume?

Everyone, or nearly everyone, does a ton of volume. More of it isn’t required. People need to do less but harder, and they can’t get around it mentally. They think if they go even more they’ll finally grow or improve and they never do. When was the last time you saw someone really sweating, really going for it? It’s basically no one even at serious gyms, they’re all in there for hours pounding away at minimal effort

>>77178716
HIT cannot grow muscle, it's ok for strength though.
Low volume high intensity is the exact method you use in sports where you need max strength and don't want mass, like certain track events.

>>77179633
>Everyone, or nearly everyone, does a ton of volume.
No. Everyone does 5x5 Starting Strength style, ie. specialized powerlifting routines.
That's why everyone looks like shit nowadays btw.

>>77179664
do you train entirely with users of this board

>>77179764
Kek

>>77179664
>5x5 Starting Strength
5 is like 5 times the volume of 1.

>>77180310
It's technically less volume than 3x10
volume is weight*reps*sets (and potentially *sessions) it is a total of weight moved in a given time frame. Sets done with a higher% of your orm usually accumulate less volume given how that scales to reps.

I only say this to highlight how much sets, reps and weekly tonnage models of weightlifting have largely broken down over time. Giving way to the effective reps model which explains almost all the interactions between intensity, sets, volume bridging conventional lifting and HIT into what is mostly a single number (assuming non-asinine loading schemes).

>>77180336
>volume is weight*reps*sets (and potentially *sessions) it is a total of weight moved in a given time frame.
Those aren't the same thing because weight is usually higher with 5x5 and volume is just number of sets.

>>77180374
It's not that's the line of bullshit people like Mike Israetel and youtubers tried to reduce it to. It's no one's fault but your own that you learned lifting from these conmen and internalized their summary of what was already a dysfunctional model as some kind of definition.

>>77180439
Fuck are you talking about, Israetel was a high volume proponent at least until nip nips did his HIT routine and got new gains, contradicting his own dogma. When it comes to strength and size, low vol high freq is optimum but everything else also works for a while, depending how long. Anything works for 6mo, then high vol works for a year or two, then your connective tissue can't keep up unless you minimize it. How many people keep lifting hard for two years? The thing is you don't HAVE to do four or three or even two hard sets per session to max gains, so why do it.

>>77180463
I said precisely what I meant. The people that simplified volume to be only sets per week and claimed that only sets per week was relevant were that camp.

Secondly the very definition of set falls apart when you start doing supersets and pause sets. (myoreps is the Israetel cluster's attempt to plagiarize and rebrand this to make it look like they came up with it)

How do I train intensity though. I don't get how do grind out a last rep like some anime character I just give up with a few reps in reserve because I'm scared of injury (bench) or dying (behind the neck press)

>>77180536
You just make a point to train that way you will grow in that capacity over time. Things I did early on to get there were static holds or really slow eccentrics on the last couple reps. I think pause sets (repping to failure then 15-30 seconds rest and doing it again) will make you super familiar with failure and what it should it feel like very quickly and even if you don't quite get there it's all within 5 reps to failure so it is doing something when you combine it with a rep goal like 20-25 reps total done with an 8-10 rep max weight having not rested longer than 30 seconds at time after having started. It will feel brutal but be manageable until you're moving really big numbers then have to decrease the quota.

>>77178226
See I don’t think this method makes sense. If intensity was this important, then weight class powerlifters would be just as jacked as bodybuilders, maybe even more since their intensity is even higher than bodybuilders their size. But this is not the case. Weight class powerlifters look decent but not like a dedicated bodybuilder at the same weight.

>>77180708
Are you genuinely retarded or have you been living under a rock for a decade?

>>77180821
The last decade has had study after study make the claim that volume is more important than intensity. I just think it’s further backed by the fact that powerlifters are the epitome of intensity based training but they are not as muscular as similarly sized bodybuilders even in the muscle groups that powerlifters hit adequately. That’s taking into account roids, too.

>>77180830
Opposite and the disciplines have become increasingly hybridizied even on the Olympic level. You're paying attention to incredibly small sphere of lifting and thinking that is the whole. Powerlifting is not remotely intensity based training except in their pre competition strength work ups. They were doing the Norwegian method since about 2016. Now a lot of them have jumped ship to do bodybuilder style training after China blew everyone out of the water by hybridzing the two by doing the majority of their work with intensity relative body building with lots of accessory work to build as much muscle as possible. Then switching gears to do high frequency strength ramp ups like the Norwegian lifters. Everyone competing has been doing this except like strongman sillyfest stuff you retards fixate on.

I do multiple sets of 1 rep. Not my max, but 85-90%. Try to increase the weight every weak. I like it.

Can someone explain HIT?

>>77183149
You push sets to failure or at the absolute least to 1 rep within failure. Intensity along with volume (sets per session and sets per week by bodypart) are some of the main dials you can adjust in terms of training variables. Because pushing to failure induces more fatigue and a higher recovery burden, it necessitates lower volume (if you're natty). The traditional recommendation has always been 10-20 sets per week per bodypart. Now it's kind of fallen down to 6-10 if you're really pushing.

For a long time muh science based nerds dominated the online fitness zeitgeist with the notion that the more sets you do per week the more gains you get. This was because Jeffrey Nipples and Mr Kike Israetel pushed it heavily based on shitty research, mostly on untrained lifters, that found there is no upper bound for the linear relationship between volume and more gains. Because the research is dogshit and dumb zoomer shitfluencers made it seem retarded by trying to game the algorithm by doing more and more retarded "optimal" lifts, the pendulum in the zeitgeist swung the other way and now everyone is obsessed with high intensity, low volume.

The "all roads lead to mentzer" shit is complete bs though, he said much more than just train hard and do less volume but people ignore all that.

>>77178226
I love it. I try to aim for 10 sets per week and I try to make the last rep an absolute grinder on every rep. I'm still making gains on dynamic double progression so unless that changes I see no need to do 1-2 RIR or less sets. I'm usually in the 6-10 rep range on everything. For most movements I do 2 sets. It's a lot more fun to be able to do 3 movements for back for example in 1 session than just 2. Also lets me be out of the gym in an hour which is a plus.

>>77183168
> last rep an absolute grinder on every rep
on every set*

>>77178401
>Want to do this
>Half the machines in my gym are on different floors so I can't SS

>>77178716
>If this is the cause, why is Dorian yates *to this day* coaching his clients with HIT principles?
hmmm now why would someone want to advertise their way of training as unique or a secret that only they can help with

>>77183177
everyone pushing high volume also does coaching and sells products no? and historically most of those people have been big time roidtrannys

>>77180581
Pause sets are pure kino

Does HIT even work?

>>77183355
why wouldnt it

>>77183360
Seems retarded.

>>77183355
The principle (or spirit) of it does, yes. Generally speaking you will see better progress if you intensify your training through weight as opposed to increasing repetitions or working sets. As others have touched on, most people thought it was all about volume. But if you look around most gyms, most people are doing a ton of volume and aren’t getting any improvement out of it. They’re not bigger or stronger or fitter. So they do MORE volume, going to the gym more often. Some even train twice a day for hours on end. Very, very few of them ever consider that if they did a lot less but did it properly and really pushed themselves that they’d see improvement

PPL 5x5 or 3x8 will see better results than being in there six days a week, hammering away with hundred rep seasons per muscle group. There is obviously a limit on how few reps and sets you can do, but ultimately it is the intensity and effort that gets results not the time spent doing it

>>77183371
In my simple thinking the obsession on volume always felt weird to me
"muscles can't count" is halfway there, but then there's also a weird obsession on time-under-tension formulas and charts that misses the forest for the trees
What I'm trying to ramble about here is that I like the idea of HIT, and it seems to work, but what also seems to work and has worked for me personally is "greasing the groove" kind of training;
for an anecdote I gained ridiculous amounts of arm strenght and mass by doing SURFING for a while and drinking beer in the evenings, made no sense to me at the time when I returned to the gym that all my max lifts had progressed significantly
Exercise science seems like a bafflingly complex field that constantly contradicts itself and is at least a decade late to explain how some "best practice" training programs actually work when they "win" in results.

>>77183434
HIT prioritizes hypertrophy and GtG prioritizes neurological adaptation
a case could be made to do both at different times since both kinda level up the ceiling for the other's priority

>>77183434
You enjoyed the exercise and the challenge of it and it saw you make good progress because you committed to it, basically. Someone who loves running will be a better runner than someone who doesn’t, all other things equal. They’ll commit to and be consistent with their training

>>77183472
GtG?

>>77183580
greasing the groove

File: IMG_20240923_2009425282.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>77183371
Mike speaks to that in some of the old tapes. Not "how much work "SHOULD" I do to grow, but "how LITTLE" can I do to get as much growth stimulus as possible?
Other issue is that no one wants to recover, 6 day splits are a joke considering that recovery is a system-wide process and tacking on additional strain and recovery debt if prior workouts have not been recovered from just digs a hole. In the end, you get people doing insane 5x12-20 rep count workouts that stall out completely after a year and think they have to go on roids, instead of just going to 2 days between workouts.

It doesn't work retards.

>>77183608
>It doesn't work for retards
ftfy
people seem to have serious issues grasping the concepts of "one set" and "to failure"

>>77183623
Post proof?

>>77183625
start with yates

And when are you guys High Intensity Train hip thrusting your girfriends?

Might combine dc/rest pause sets with conjugate to handle my Accessory work. Is this asking for CNS death?

People should understand that the value of HIT and especially Mentzer is not purely in doing things 1:1 to what he said.
I would go as far as to say that most people without enhancement and not using meth as a PWO like Mike should not pursue training purely like he advised.
Mike's direction was right, but for him the distance he could go there was much further than most people can reliably do.
Doing just one (after proper warmup) really, really, really hard set per exercise to absolute failure just isn't what average people will be able to keep doing week to week. So doing two sets or, god forbid, THREE sets, doesn't inherently go against HIT.
The main point I think is simply this:
Put in as much effort and exertion in to the reps and sets you do as you can, within reason so you don't visit snap city, and don't obsess over the NUMBERS (volume, weight) in the middle of the process.
Retards like M. Israeli and Nippleff obsess about the metrics and numbers and all kinds of peripheral bullshit when the main focus should be in TRAINING WITH SOME FUCKING EFFORT, while also not being a retard about recovery and obsessing over number checklists of volume per week.

>>77183743
M. Isratel's level of retardness as the poster child of volume obsession (because of le science) can be distilled to his take on recovery:
He thought getting stronger week-to-week was an indicator you were not doing enough volume as he expects you to be so burned out you keep stalling there, but at least you still fill up the volume checklist! It's basedence!

>>77183669
What do mean conjugate? Like rotating a lift out when it stalls? Because that's how dc is normally done.

>>77183639
Retard.

>>77183780

U/L split with max effort days and dynamic effort days for the main lifts.

>>77184261
Yeah that's fine. Dc is usually capped at 6-8 weeks anyhow before you gotta go back to normal failure sparing training for a block. If you have some kind built fatigue management like that you can probably do that near indefinitely without deload. But no matter how you split it 1/2 your training on the calendar isn't going to be you doing much more than maintaining.

>>77183601
>6 day splits are a joke considering that recovery is a system-wide process
Explain why PPL is more exhausting than full body, assuming identical weekly volume. I.e. number of sets per day being like

5-5-5-5-5-5-0
vs.
15-0-0-15-0-0-0

Protip: You can't.

>>77184492
>Exercise
>Introduce muscle tears
>Body has to devote resources to building those muscles
>But wait
>Honklefuck goes back to the gym tomorrow to work ANOTHER muscle group
>New fires started
>Body has to split recovery resources across two muscle groups
>BUT WAIT- THERE'S MORE!
>Now legs are getting worked
>Body is rebuilding 3 different sets of muscles, but at 1/3rd the efficiency now
>Some cursed roid cucks even do 6 days in a row
Don't split your resources, get the most you can from each workout. Do you honestly want to be in the gym 24 days a month or would you rather go 8 times and grow equally as well and feel good?

>>77184761
You're a retard thanks for posting.

>>77184777
Checked for being a fucking retard.
If a city has to build new power plants to meet the needs of new electricity demand, why would your body -NOT- sputter out trying to recover when you continually pile on demands, and then be surprised when your strength nor size ever really goes anywhere as you continually put yourself into a deficit?

File: really.png (96.4 KB)

96.4 KB PNG

>>77184761
>Body is rebuilding 3 different sets of muscles, but at 1/3rd the efficiency now
If you do full body that's just one set of muscles, instead of all three?

>>77178226
ULTRA reddit meme method of training.
High volume is always king.
>BUT BUT BUT DORIAN YATES
Yeah, and the others 500 Olympias?

That said, Mentzer is based.

>>77184858
Post proof.

>>77178241
>but made some changes
Yeah, like Mentzer did with the original one from the Nautilus guy (forgot the name), like Dorian did with the Mentzer HD, etc
That's the thing with HIT/HD etc. It doesn't work, everyone needs to constantly change it.
>lol 4 sets is ridiculous for this exercise
>me? I do HIT, only 1 set!
>but it's 1 one warmup set, 2 feeders set, and 1 working set!
Lol kys

>>77184915
Proof of what??

>>77178545
>He built his size on higher volume Kek.
True and well documented.

>He only created this HIT garbage to make money out of lazy and overly minimalistic subhumans that don't actually enjoy the gym. People that swear by HIT usually look like DYELs and it's very often Millennials and Boomers with 14 inch arms and a gut.
Kind of acid but it is true as well

>>77184858
>>BUT BUT BUT DORIAN YATES
>Yeah, and the others 500 Olympias?
Not even Dorian could be considered low volume.

File: ArthurJonesontheexperts.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>77184925
>Nautilus guy (forgot the name)

One rep sets.

>>77178226
Homo.

>>77184957
Besides the resistance curve machines which I'm thankful for, I'm hoping the indirect effect is proven true.
I saw some preprint studies suggesting that HIT training to absolute momentary muscular failure does induce an HGH spike, raises test, and releases decorin which is a system-wide myostatin inhibitor but knowing the science cucks bow down to arthur would fill my heart with joy.

>>77184957
Fag.

Rest days mean no cardio btw

File: IMG_2072.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>>77178226
2 years natural ideal routine + some blood and guts techniques.

>>77178226
I think I am going to try HIT this year. I want to see for myself.

>>77184492
Because you have to use more weight.
If you do OHP immediately after bench, you won't be able to use as much weight compared to if you pushed back the OHP to the next day or later in the week.
But is the stimulus any greater for PPL? No, the muscles can't tell how much weight you're using. They can only tell if the fibers contract. The objective of the workout is only to bring the muscles to failure. If you do everything sequentially on one day, you can bring the muscles to failure with less volume, which is objectively better.
In your example, the number of sets may be the same, but the total amount of work is greater in the first case, which means more stress on the body and so is harder to recover from.

>>77185917
By all means, it is at the very least maintence.
Word of cation though have 2 or 3 lifts for every group. Not just to better isolate certain heads of muscles but to have a variety of stress patterns on your joints. You can absolutely fuck yourself on HIT because you gain a lot of strength in the short term and you wind up being able to move much heavier weights quickly. If you're going in without a warm up you can easily do something your connective tissue isn't ready to handle. So keep above 8 reps and under 15 and you'll be mostly safe. You want a wider rep range with HIT in your double progression because it gives you more time to adapt. With isolations who gives a shit but with actually heavy stuff use a wider range.

You'll eventually get to point where you're just repping the same weight for the same reps weeks on end. Then it might be time to mix shit up do that lift more often but sparing a rep or do it less often but harder or with a different rep tempo. Be prepared for HIT to not be perfect template for infinite gains since nothing is.

>>77185941
>If you do OHP immediately after bench, you won't be able to use as much weight compared to if you pushed back the OHP to the next day or later in the week.
It does make sense that only people with learning disabilities argue with me. Whether you do full body or PPL has zero to do with doing bench and ohp on the same day. You either do both 2-3x/week, or alternate, or just one, or neither.

>>77185942
Will probably make my own version of HIT program that suits my needs. Will try to post frequent updates.

>>77185952
>Whether you do full body or PPL has zero to do with doing bench and ohp on the same day.
>splitting up your routine doesn't change how many exercises you do on one day
Okay, here's another example to help you, braindead as you are. If you do bench after squats, you won't be able to move as much weight as if you did bench first thing and moved squats to a different day. This should be intuitive to anyone with a three digit IQ. The more you consolidate your routine to one day, the more you reduce the total work done.

>>77179122
>Yates did "warm up sets" before his main set. And those warm up sets would kill an average gym goer anyway, since people usually don't train hard enough anyway.
>12 reps with 50% of your 12RM, then 12 reps with 75% of your 12RM, is enough to kill the average gym goer.

>>77186048
Unlike the bench+ohp example that might actually be relevant so it would probably have been better to use it instead.

However, calling benching and squatting on the same day beneficial because you'll be worse at the second one is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board, and you might want to ask a relative to start looking at special needs facilities for you. 999,999 times out of a million it's preferable to be fresh for a lift.

>>77186024
Yeah that's what I was implying I don't think heavy duty (mentzer's thing) was very good at all after it's first version.

The general template is 2 lifts per group 1 compound that covers 2 or 3 groups than an accessory for each subgroup.

Like a bench then a fly and a lat raise. It's deceptively not actually 1 set per group despite the memes. You can even take it farther like 1 bench, a clavivular head isolation, a sternal head isolation, a tricep long head isolation, a lateral head isolation then apply that where able. Then you're up to what's on paper 3 sets a group even though it still meshes with HIT.

>>77185800
What height? I've done ideal routine with okay results for a tall guy for about 2ish years now but you're looking pretty good.

>>77185942
People say this but I don't think they see the genius in the ideal routine with the supersets.
Sure My upper body days are only once per week, but one week on arms I'm doing arms but will incidentally hit say chest or lats with the supersets that burn down the associated arm muscles like triceps or biceps with dips or lat pulldowns; vice versa on the chest/back day where lat pulldowns hit tris and incline bench hits triceps with the way he has you do close-grip.
John hart tho does recc doing 2 sets for the major upper body muscles tbf.

>>77186059
>calling benching and squatting on the same day beneficial because you'll be worse at the second one is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board
That's your misunderstanding. Bringing the muscle to failure with less volume is objectively better.
>999,999 times out of a million it's preferable to be fresh for a lift.
Supersets, for example, are so effective specifically because you're NOT fresh. That's the point.

>>77186976
>That's your misunderstanding.
No it isn't, moron.
>Bringing the muscle to failure with less volume is objectively better.
And no it isn't, moron. If you fail squats early because you just benched, that's systemic not muscular failure and it's worse for muscle training.

And if you just want less total fatigue you can stop short of failure with PPL, instead of being weak because you're doiing two hour full body workouts.
>Supersets, for example, are so effective specifically because you're NOT fresh. That's the point.
Depends on the lifts. If it's bicep curls and tricep pushdowns it's just to save time. If it's curls and rows or something, it might help you use less bicep rowing but it's inconsequential if you're lifting properly. (Like going hard while usinig your back.)

>>77186983
>that's systemic not muscular failure
What system, exactly? Tell me what biological process is being stressed.
Do you mean cardiovascular? That'll improve over time such that it's not the limiting factor, and if that's not the limiting factor then it must be muscular.
>And if you just want less total fatigue you can stop short of failure with PPL, instead of being weak because you're doiing two hour full body workouts.
Okay, now I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>77186999
>What system, exactly? Tell me what biological process is being stressed.
Primarily glycogen depletion, penisbrain.

>Okay, now I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.
Doesn't matter.

>>77186627
I don't think super sets are more useful than pause sets or what not when it gets down to a muscle by muscle basis. I you go with the effective reps model of ~only the last five reps before failure really count for hypertrophy but within those five they're mostly the same so not going to or going to failure on those is the same as long as the quantity of reps_within_5_of_failure (just 5rf from here on out) is the same. So you can super set, you can straight set, you can pause set or whatever else it's going to be similar. They're not any less effective just the logistics of hitting two stations in specific sequence tends to make them less practical if you're trying to cut down on gym time. As much as I would love to throw the poopsmell phone users out of the pec deck my gym won't allow it.

>>77187174
If the muscle is depleted of glycogen, it's because you've used it and everything I said before applies. That's not a reason to use PPL over Full Body. That's a reason NOT to split things up.

>>77187316
The interesting take in IR is that mentzer has you do complimentary supersets:
- Pullovers > pulldowns (adds in arm muscles and teres/traps)
- Pec deck > incline bench (adds in triceps)
- Leg extensions > back squats (Full weight on posterior chain but still working quads)
So driving the primary muscle into failure and then driving it into the ground on the superset secondary, BUT with the added benefit of using those other muscles to help drive it to failure and working those muscle groups at the same time.

>>77187383
I don't really see that as being logical. You can work anything but unless that specific cluster of fibers is getting within 5 of failure it's not contributing to their hypertrophy. Even in the same muscle whichever head was closer to or was the point of failure will benefit more than the others.

>>77187334
>If the muscle is depleted of glycogen, it's because you've used it and everything I said before applies. That's not a reason to use PPL over Full Body. That's a reason NOT to split things up.
You can get low blood sugar from only using some muscles. If you've lifted hard you've probably experienced it, but since you have no clue about anything you probably didn't know what it was. The liver stores glycogen for the whole body and it can be depleted.

File: Screenshot_20260404-030315_Chrome.jpg (763.2 KB)

763.2 KB JPG

>>77187544
Glycogen is also stored locally in the muscle.
I've sufficiently answered your question here >>77184492. You're arguing just to argue.

>>77187544
>>77187570
That is to say, there's no reason to eat into your liver glycogen during a bodybuilding workout. There's enough glycogen in the muscles before the workout begins to perform an exercise long enough to stimulate growth for each muscle. The limit of liver glycogen is not a reason to choose one schedule over another.

File: vwor.jpg (57.4 KB)

57.4 KB JPG

>>77187570
>Glycogen is also stored locally in the muscle
Suggesting I might not know that already just demonstrates your obliviousness
>I've sufficiently answered your question here
You tried to cover your dumb ass after being stupid, for some reason since we're posting anonymously, and failed.
>>77187575
>there's no reason to eat into your liver glycogen during a bodybuilding workout.
>i'm not only a retard, i never lifted hard

>>77187595
>why u mad tho?
Seriously, chill out, retard. I've briefly read the argument between you two, and your hands are legit shaking, lmao.
>>77187334
Systemic fatigue is indeed a thing, not just local fatigue. This is the primary argument against full body as you seem unwilling to accept. You can get far more stimulation with pure isolation of every muscle rather than full body compounds due to such low fatigue to stimulus ratio (with lower injury risk to boot). The downside is absolutely no one is going to be doing that but professional bodybuilders and NEETs with no life, job, school, etc. and mommy supporting him because you'd literally be in the gym for fucking hours upon hours.
Between reasonable stimulation and practicality, most people are not going to go full autism one way (full body with great systemic fatigue) or the other (isolation heavy with only local fatigue). PPL does fall in the middle somewhere, but it's not some magic bullet and quite frankly its 90% categorization by semantics rather than effective session programming.
But whatever. You two retards do whatever you want. Time and time again it's proven that doing something you enjoy and can keep up consistently, safely, while putting in real effort is going to be far more effective than any armchair hypothesis.

File: Screenshot_20260404-043449_Chrome.jpg (770.3 KB)

770.3 KB JPG

>>77187595
>i'm not only a retard, i never lifted hard
Shortening the rest between exercises, doing all of them in a row back to back, makes the workout harder. I wouldn't expect you to know how it feels if you've never tried it. Picrel
>Suggesting I might not know that already just demonstrates your obliviousness
Well you brought up liver glycogen even though it's a non-issue.
>>77187607
>Systemic fatigue is indeed a thing, not just local fatigue. This is the primary argument against full body as you seem unwilling to accept.
You can bring the muscles to failure with less volume by supersetting everything. With less total volume required, there's less "systemic fatigue".
What system is being taxed more by doing less volume?
>You can get far more stimulation with pure isolation of every muscle rather than full body compounds
The discussion was not about compound movements vs isolation movements.

>>77187620
>Well you brought up liver glycogen even though it's a non-issue.
It's the cause of systemic fatigue, and I've felt it dozens of times. Runners call it hitting the wall; you aren't as strong/fast, you can't think very well, and you crave sugar. This motherfucker (You) is acting like no one was ever fucking worn out from physical activity.

>>77187607
>your hands are legit shaking, lmao.
Don't be a faggot.
>PPL does fall in the middle somewhere, but it's not some magic bullet
If you paid attention you might notice only the other guy was the one calling one method a problem "6 day splits are a joke", when it isn't.

>>77187672
>Runners call it hitting the wall;
Hm,, so not bodybuilding, then? As I expected. Long-distance cardio has nothing to do with anything in this thread.
You've felt it dozens of times because you don't train hard. You train for a long duration.

>>77187678
I've never felt it running. I happen to know things outside my personal experience, when you don't even know that.

First of all weight training isn't always "bodybuilding"; I don't compete in beauty pageants. But I've felt it many times even doing a 6 day split, under an hour at the gym, say if I didn't eat first, while on a caloric deficit (Somewhat carb depleted).

You have no clue what you're talking about and you're probably a fat incel trying to prove you're smarter than "jocks". You aren't.

>>77187685
>First of all weight training isn't always "bodybuilding"; I don't compete in beauty pageants.
"Bodybuilding" isn't always competing in a show. Nevertheless, you came into a bodybuilding thread by choice.
>But I've felt it many times even doing a 6 day split, under an hour at the gym, say if I didn't eat first, while on a caloric deficit (Somewhat carb depleted).
All of my workouts are full body, are done in a fasted state, and take about 1.5 hours. It's hard enough to make you feel ill at first, but you get used to it, as Oliva said.
Maybe you're just out of shape.

>>77187742
>Nevertheless, you came into a bodybuilding thread by choice.
HIT thread.
>All of my workouts...
No one on Earth cares.
>Maybe you're just out of shape.
The stronger you are the faster you can use glycogen. How many times did you fail the GED exam?

File: GfvTmcwXYAAnki_.jpg (78.9 KB)

78.9 KB JPG

how many sets you guys doing?

>>77187898
I do hip thrust to the girlfriend to failure, as many sets as I can with around 15 minutes pause between sets

File: 1774722028128196.jpg (129.2 KB)

129.2 KB JPG

>>77185942
Lmao see? Always changing it lol
>just add more exercises here and there
>I like it but IN MY VERSION I'd add more sets
>HIT is amazing but I've changed some aspects...

>>77187828
>what is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

>>77187828
>The stronger you are the faster you can use glycogen
Then you can more quickly exhaust that muscle and move on to another exercise. Also, the bigger your muscles are, the more glycogen they'll have stored before the workout even begins, so once again this is a non-issue.
Liver glycogen reserves don't need to be touched to stimulate muscle growth. Your workouts are simply too long. They're too long because they're not hard. If you were actually training hard, you wouldn't be able to tap into the liver glycogen. It is not a factor in deciding whether to do PPL or FB.

>>77180848
I tried looking this up, and see the results of the Chinese Taipei guys doing well proportionally. And bits about them doing bodybuilding stuff, but nothing about them doing intensity based bodybuilding.

All powerlifting has periodization built into it where intensity will eventually get high even if most of it is submaximal.

>>77188530
>this is a non-issue.
>Liver glycogen reserves don't need to be touched to stimulate muscle growth. Your workouts are simply too long.
I'm in the HIT thread because I usually do it. Regardless, if I get systemic low blood sugar then liver glycogen is being used. If I want to do X amount of work per week, whether it's lifting or cardio, it's more efficient for muscle building if I'm not stupidly doing half a full body workout in a weakened state. That's junk volume.
>just eat more
I don't have to, so I can burn more fat, if I do PPL, you victim of genetics.

"If what we see happening is not explained by your explanation then your explanation is wrong." - Mark Rippetoe

>>77188372
I don't know what point you're trying to make. HIT is an umbrella term for a category of workouts taking roughly similar approaches by prioritizing maximum intensity. It is not exclusively mentzer's heavy duty. Most of the modernizations to HIT come from making it work without amphetamines and steroids.

>>77188530
>Your workouts are simply too long. They're too long because they're not hard
nta but i never believed this. You can go HARD and LONG when you really want it.

>>77188838
Are you diabetic?
Are you bringing a blood glucose meter to the gym?

>>77189115
You can feel it as discussed several posts ago.

>>77188842
It's pretty simple: High Intensity Training/HIT is based on the principle that the volume should be low.
You can't have high intensity and high volume together. It will lead to injury. So there are basically two approaches to hypertrophy: medium/high volume (which has made 99% of all bodybuilders and people get big) and low volume (which has made absolutely 0 people successful with this, since Mentzer created his physique with high volume, just like Dorian, when you read his training and routine, there's nothing about HIT or HD in practice there). EVERYONE who wants to have any success either came from high volume or they modify their training so much by adding sets with other names/extra exercises that they become followers of high volume.
Everyone who preaches or defends HIT is: zoomers who just discovered it on TikTok and know absolutely nothing about bodybuilding or training (like you, from what I've read here), powerlifters who "migrated" to bodybuilding and got stuck halfway, scammers who sell HIT courses/coaching because it's something hyped on social media and dumb and stupid people want to consume it.
There's a reason why there isn't a single successful bodybuilder using HIT. Guess what it is.

>>77189646
You're trying to force an interpretation that isn't there. I'm not biting.

Guys is heavy duty training legit? Give it to me straight? Im a hospital worker and don't have a ton of time and looking into it>>77189718

>>77178226
I wonder. Could you implement HIT for powerlifting? How would that look like? Like a modified bulgarian?

>>77178226
Damn, Paul Blart used to be JACKED.

>>77178226
Fags.

>>77189906
It's a weird juxtaposition because mentzer wants you doing heavy and intense to force strength and size gains... but at a safe weight for 6-10 and progress once you hit or break past 10.
I had a 6' powershart lady yelling at me on hinge because she asked for my 1RM but I didn't know, but I knew I could do 325 for 7 on a hex bar.
If you progress normally you could try it but you need to mind rest. Ideal routine has everything balanced out across 12 days at first (16 days, 3 days rest following workout if advanced) and diddlys once per cycle- but if you're only training powershart lifts you'd be looking at probably once every 8-9 days of one set of 6-10 reps to failure.
In his retiree BB routine, the consolidated routine, he has
>Pulldowns
>Leg press
then
>Weighted dips
>Diddlys
once a week.

File: 372927171917.jpg (90.5 KB)

90.5 KB JPG

>>77178226
It has been several months since I last visited /fit/ and I see that a good general has finally happened. Fewer sets with failure and enough tension (NOT overweight which causes injury) is far, far superior to RIR (whatever it means) volume-focused sets. You can get the most training benefits from those few sets anyway, take enough recovery and check your CNS status, if you feel overwhelmed and tired for the next training that means you need more rest. The HIT principle is the best for muscle growth in cost(time) effectiveness thus your life itself, as a natty, I don't wanna be a no-lifer infinite volume wheel-spinner for the mediocre benefits from the extra training with the diminishing return.

>>77183177
>why would someone want to advertise their way of training as unique or a secret that only they can help with
Jones, Mentzer, or Yates have never stated as such. It's not unique and there's no secret.

>>77183149
1) In order to stimulate growth in the muscle, the intensity of the exercise must exceed a certain threshold. Nobody knows exactly where that is, so to play it safe just go to failure.
2) As you get bigger and stronger, the stresses on the body increase (or you could say the demands for recovery increase. Repairing 2lb of muscle takes longer than repairing 1lb of muscle). You must decrease volume or increase rest days in your rotation to compensate.
Those are the barebones requirements. All else is just nitpicking or fluff.

>>77178226
Yeah but you aren't even hitting the muscles right, now bend over.

>>77191675
Interesting.

>>77189906
Mark Chaillet

File: Mentzer death cut of ease.png (54.5 KB)

54.5 KB PNG

>>77178401
Ran all of my lift data and nutritional data for the past 3 months as I did my 17lb recomp cut into grok.
Apparently I've done the literal absolute best I can in somehow not losing any strength but only gaining it, and the whole 3 month effort was nothing short of miraculous. Especially in my squat going up 30lbs even after the pre-exhaust leg extension isometric.
I'm already trim at 175lbs but I fucking hate any amount of stomach fat so I'm going to take it down to 172 and see.
I just want my upper body to catch up but I have long arms from being tall so apparently I should be thankful for what I can get.

>>77192272
Will check him out.

>>77178226
I restructured my whole workout schedule maybe 3 months ago after listening to Mike talk about the importance of rest days. I used to have 3 different routines with a 48 hour rest period between each of them. Now I have 4 routines with 72 hours between each, and I've been seeing decent results. While my actual lifting numbers haven't gone up too dramatically, I seem to be accumulating muscle mass, which is encouraging.

Doesn't work.

>>77191675
(i don't expect a reply it's just to bump the thread)
>1) In order to stimulate growth in the muscle, the intensity of the exercise must exceed a certain threshold. Nobody knows exactly where that is, so to play it safe just go to failure.

We do know. It's around when type 2 fibers reach max recruitment. You can't physically recruit every type 2 fiber in a muscle simultaneously because of the limitations of a neurons but there is a maximum they can recruit at once. This occurs when a load is either at or higher than your 5 rep max or within 5 reps of failure. That is where tension peaks on the largest potential number of type 2 fibers.

Type 1 fibers handle lighter loads and take up a larger % of the recruited fibers the farther away from failure it is. They can also hypertrophy but usually at a much a higher rep range.

What makes this useful is that it can become a blueprint for working anything more time effeciently. If you were to do 1 set to failure rest the minimum amount of time it would take to complete another 5 reps. It would effectively be 2 sets even though you're short changing the second set.

All these within 5 reps are equivalent in stimulus (within the same set) and follow the same trend of diminishing returns as any subsequent set.

As for the 2.) no. Flatly the rate at which we see ffmi increases occur at a fixed interval regardless of how advanced in training or age the person is. This points to the mechanisms for fortification being mostly genetically controlled. I say say fortification and not repair because damage is not required for muscle to grow it is at best incidental and a different process entirely separate from hypertrophy. How these two district processes line up is still open for debate but the myoprotein synthesis and subsequent fusing of those satellite cells into existing muscle cells is on its own time table.

>>77189718
I stated facts, don't care what you think

>>77195056
You stated opinions you're presenting as facts and attempt to change context of other people's posts to move the argument towards semantic shit flinging. I know your game as anyone who's had to contend with jews on a regular basis would too.

>>77194963
John little interviewed a guy recently but they discussed this point, essentially the failure cascade with HIT is
Slow > fast twitch > emergency fast twitch
And once that stimulus is reached, the muscle floods the body with inflammatory cytokines both to spur lean mass growth elsewhere but also to lower myostatin and request more hormones like testosterone be made.

>>77194963
1) You're not contradicting my point. This is only a justification not to use a weight that is your 4RM or greater. It has nothing to do with what I said.
Your muscles can't count to 5, by the way. There's nothing special about the number 5.
2) >I say say fortification and not repair because damage is not required for muscle to grow it is at best incidental and a different process entirely separate from hypertrophy. How these two district processes line up is still open for debate but the myoprotein synthesis and subsequent fusing of those satellite cells into existing muscle cells is on its own time table.
I am aware that damage, I'd there is any, is a side effect of the exercise and not the thing that induces growth.
Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. Did you even read my post?
>Flatly the rate at which we see ffmi increases occur at a fixed interval regardless of how advanced in training or age the person is.
LMAO this is absolutely not true. Each pound of muscle is harder than the last to apply. New people grow like weeds. If you want to claim contradictory nonsense, you're going to have to post some proof.

>>77194963
>>77196181
>has nothing to do with what I said.
I shouldn't have said this. It is related, but it falls under the category of nitpicking.

>>77194963
>It's around when type 2 fibers reach max recruitment.
>This occurs when a load is either at or higher than your 5 rep max
So if you pick up a load that is equal to your 5rm, and you do 1 rep, you're already at max recruitment?
>All these within 5 reps are equivalent in stimulus (within the same set) and follow the same trend of diminishing returns as any subsequent set.
So doing a second rep with your 5rm does get you better returns than doing just one.
Do you not see a contradiction here?

>>77196181
It doesn't have to count. These are just simply things that occur naturally as a result of force production requirements. The only reason a number exists here is because we observed it and it happens predictably regardless of the orm%. So the amount of exertion isn't just describable it's quantifiable. Which is neat not nessisary to train this way but neat nonetheless. That's what all that was getting at.
As for the second not rate of growth. Probably a poor choice of words on my part. The window, the interval of time between which exercise and the actual new mass being present in the muscle. Is what I'm referring to there. Mps windows shorten but the delay that cellular fusion and fortification occurs at what appears to be a fixed window. In some humans it's 3 days in some it's 5 there was some weird outlier where it was something like 17 days until they saw an ffmi increase (they were not exercised until they saw ffmi increases). The only practical take away from this is you build when you build and figuring out that interval for yourself will mean more than doing any kind of prescribed split. I think it also might likely be part of why we see people gaining and undergaining on pretty much every split. The better it lines up with your individual window the better it's going to work. Lying to yourself and thinking "I'll be genetic freak and do this every other day" is probably a mistake we've all made at some point.
>>77196241
I don't take it personally I expect people to spice up their posts and make it more caustic and personal it's the zest of 4chan.

>>77196280
It's follows the same tend in that the bigger the number the less adding another one does. But is the result is still larger.
What this means in practice is shoot for somewhere between 12-25 a session per muscle. 3 sets to failure is 15. 1 set to failure and squeezing out 10 pause setted reps after is also 15. It puts stimulus and fatigue in the same box so I think it's more real and usable number than something that doesn't like purely sets or weekly tonnage.

>>77189646
>low volume (which has made absolutely 0 people successful with this, since Mentzer created his physique with high volume, just like Dorian, when you read his training and routine, there's nothing about HIT or HD in practice there)
>there isn't a single successful bodybuilder using HIT
Casey Viator said he did HIT before he ever met Arthur Jones https://www.ironmanmagazine.com/60-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/
Dorian Yates credits Mentzer in his book Blood and Guts, on page 4, for his EARLY training. On page 27, he explicitly mentions Heavy Duty, specifically.
John Heart said he knew Mentzer personally and used HIT from the beginning. The "he built his body with high volume" excuse has no standing. Also, if you go to his channel, you can find plenty of other pro bodybuilders that use it.
Could you do us the bare minimum of courtesy and not lie through your teeth?

File: 620952027_17961804327040445_1173526874286528996_n.jpg (142.6 KB)

142.6 KB JPG

how did mike mentzer end up like this?
<

>>77196932
bulking

>>77196938
i thought it was because of depression and drug use

>>77196181
Anon is failure required to grow if you exercise with high reps to stimulate fast twitch fibers, or does it still not matter as those fast twitch will eventually convert into slow twitch anyway (instead of all slow twitch fibers converting into fast twitch just because you train to failure)?

And you said something about finding your own recovery rate, is a slow one inferior?

And how does one find their training rep range that works for them, do you have experience with that?

>>77196932
He had to get off roids (arguably not off meth somehow), loved ice cream, and as >>77196946 said, he crashed out and never recovered after 1980.

>>77196932
A decade of not dieting.

File: sullin kwak Seraphic - 260329 #트리플에스 #TripleS #곽연지 #YeonJi [2038297414638211072]-[01.50.527-02.04.507].webm (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB WEBM

i think one set worked for mike mentzer and dorian yates because they took steroids

i don't think it's enough for someone who is natty

>>77196932
mike mentzer getting fat later in life discredits his entire training program in my opinion
it makes me doubt what he says
how the fuck do you get fat being a health/training guru?

>>77197383
its really hard to not get fat when you are like 50 bro, it doesn't say anything about his knowledge.

I personally think he was mostly wrong and full of shit but you gotta separate the art from the artists.

>>77197390
he's not just fat. he's fat fat
that's not fat due to aging

>>77197406
https://youtu.be/1dzGjHc0IEY?t=356

look at terrible mike mentzer and ray mentzer looked in their 40s
that's why they died early

people want to blame genetics for that. i don't think it was genetics. that's lifestyle

>>77197411
look how terrible

>>77197411
they were wearing baggy clothes to cover their bad physiques lmao

>>77197406
Mentzer also started drinking a lot and smoking later in life. Marcus Reinhart, one of his friends, had recalled going out daily to get Mike his daily bottle of Vodka. Marcus, when working for some supplement company, gave him a bottle of some preworkout only to find out Mike drank the whole thing in a day saying it made him feel great and he wanted another bottle. Mike just wanted to sit down with his vodka and work on his writing. And then they would eat all this fatty food.
>>77197411
Mike let himself go after 1980. And then there was the whole drug problem thing in the early to late 80's that got him institutionalized. Ray kept it up longer but eventually was diagnosed with a kidney disease that he ended up dying from. Mike also had an underlying heart problem. They both let themselves go and stopped even bothering with training.
>i don't think it was genetics. that's lifestyle
It's never one or the other. It's always both in every single case in spite of some people liking to artificially divide these things. Environmental constraint and genetic expression exist forever in a feedback cycle that no one can ever really honestly or accurately divide into separate causes. It's usually some kind of politics in an attempt to divorce genetics and environment. "Lifestyle" or some environmental factors are influenced by genetic temperaments. The choice of an environment influenced by genetics. And then that environment enhances the expression of that temperament. So on and so forth.

Mike was like predisposed to this sort of addictive personality and consequential that would explain his apparently single minded obsession with bodybuilding and the eventual meth use to be more productive later as a writer. Ray likely had similar temperament that would lead to things.

>>77197303
He was probably off meth. He just switched it with alcohol and cigarettes.

>>77197173
>high reps
Without failure is just cardio. "High reps" in particular need context. If you're talking about 15-20 reps, yes you absolutely need to go to failure. I wouldn't go past 20 reps unless you absolutely have to and then at that point it's best to add weight.
> does it still not matter as those fast twitch will eventually convert into slow twitch
There's not really much evidence of any significant fiber type changes. There's a few studies. But given the methodologies in those studies, they are highly suspect. Arguably not even statistically valid. The structure of the muscle itself doesn't generally change. You can only get what you already have and stimulate hypertrophy.
>failure
How motor unit recruitment works is through Henneman's size principal. The brain sequentially recruits motor units in order based on size. The smaller, more metabolically efficient units are recruited first. Then the larger ones are recruited depending on NEED. You don't need very many motor units to pick up a pencil. You need a lot more to pick up 20 lbs. Even more to pick up 40 lbs. Even more to pick up 60 lbs. And so on. As the muscle fibers get stronger the threshold for recruitment goes up.

The goal is to recruit as many motor units as possible, especially the largest motor units which are most prone to growth. Only two options; training to failure and/or heavy weight; 80% or more of your 1RM--80% is approximately the 8RM. For less than 80% failure guarantees recruitment. For high than that, you're going to be recruiting a lot more motor units anyways.

>>77197411
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bXOAz_LhdTs?feature=share

dorian yates talks about it here

File: Approximation Aristotle.jpg (69.1 KB)

69.1 KB JPG

>>77197429
surely if you do 18 reps with a 20rm that wont significantly impact gains right? and there is another thing, when you do these reps back to back the pump literally prevents you from taking it to muscular failure, so your forced to take a break.

and do you believe in feeling the muscle, or in slowing reps down? explosive reps aren't all that conducive towards feeling I mean, if it's important at all that is.

Thanks for your time anon.

>>77184925
Why would you tell someone to kill themselves just for a disagreement on something like a routine?
I was about to take you seriously, sad

>>77197173
>Anon is failure required to grow if you exercise with high reps to stimulate fast twitch fibers, or does it still not matter as those fast twitch will eventually convert into slow twitch anyway (instead of all slow twitch fibers converting into fast twitch just because you train to failure)?
Fibers don't convert, as far as I know. It's possible for fast twitch fibers to atrophy while slow twitch fibers remain, due to overwork, so that would give the appearance of becoming more slow twitch dominant as measured by % of total mass.
Failure is not strictly required to grow; A lot of people grow without going to failure. It's required in order to contract the largest fast twitch fibers IAW Henneman's size principle, as the other anon stated below. It's good practice to do so if you want certainty.
Some people will argue that you can just do one set to ~70%, rest, then another set to ~70% and so on, and you've hit all the fibers, but that's incorrect. During that rest, some slow twitch fibers will recover and they'll be reused. You still won't contract the very last fibers unless you go to failure on at least one of those sets.
>And you said something about finding your own recovery rate, is a slow one inferior?
It doesn't matter if it is or not. You can't switch bodies with someone else. Beyond changing your lifestyle choices, it's out of your control. My point earlier was that the number of sets that you can recover from per week will decrease over time as you get older/stronger.
>And how does one find their training rep range that works for them, do you have experience with that?
It doesn't really matter. You can get stronger in any rep range. The heavier you go, the more of a warmup you'll need (see Mark Chaillet for an example).
I don't like to bother, personally. I prefer to pick up my 40RM (no warmup) do it until I can't move anymore, cheat it up to do one static hold until I can't hold it anymore, then move on to the next exercise.

>>77197751
I'm too drunk to bother with the rest of this right now but reps at or over your 15 rep max (slightly below 65% orm) mean you warm up during the set. There's no downside in taking them failure unless you're banking on making a pr or something after.

>>77197608
>18 reps with a 20rm that
It's best to stay below 15 for anything but quads. Quads tend to do better with higher reps.
>wont significantly impact gains right? and there is another thing, when you do these reps back to back the pump literally prevents you from taking it to muscular failure
If you find that you can't get to failure because you're exhausted from doing too much reps due to heart rate you really need to use a heavier weight.
>feeling the muscle
MMC is very important. It's harder to feel with heavier weight. But having a sense of being able to move in a specific way is necessary to stimulate growth. This is partly why squeezing exercises like pec deck or spider curls are so important. You can really feel what you're doing.
>slowing reps down
Contrary to the HIT dogma found in the old Nautilus method, I don't believe in slowing down reps other than in the negative. Negative should be slower at least for safety and control.
>explosive reps
Forceful, but not explosive. Explosive is just high velocity. High velocity just means you're exerting much more force than is required; rapid acceleration. Everyone can be explosive with 50% 1RM and enough practice. It's really hard, if not impossible, to be explosive with a 3RM. Not enough acceleration with a 3RM to be explosive. The brain still has to go through the recruitment sequence to move and though it ends up using almost all the motor units within the first rep, it's still far from instantaneous. There is the golden mean, that is to allow your brain to determine the speed you move; the natural speed. Not to try to force your self to move as fast as possible or artificially slow down.

>>77198756
how does feeling the muscle make sense when it makes you actively weaker?

like I can curl a weight like a brute, and my form may be slightly off but that's it, it makes me much stronger in a practical way.

if I really feel the bicep and do it with perfect form, it's not even that useful Irl and I use much less weight. So what is the point of the mmc besides looks? No other athletic sport uses a mmc. They just drill techniques that maximize performance without injury risk. I really don't think that is what we are doing with the mmc in bodybuilding. It seems vain. So what is the point? Get a 1cm bigger peak on your left bicep or so?

File: 0e057f63187de66f26a2c0378b1377e8fe23a32349e6c9c5ec8efafd094550ad.png (140.9 KB)

140.9 KB PNG

>>77178226
Trying out mike's ideal routine.
Just had that first leg day but chest/back day with deadlifts is 3 days from now... is that enough time for the hamstrings to recover? My legs feel weak as is, I don't know how recovery will go, but he wants 6-10 DLs to failure and I don't know if worn out glutes or hams can carry that movement.

File: mpv-shot0032.jpg (180.4 KB)

180.4 KB JPG

>mentzer's Heavy Duty program involved 7–9 sets per workout on a three-day-per-week schedule.

i do 3 exercises and 3 sets per exercise(to failure)

dips
chin ups
wide grip pull ups

i don't do anything for legs. i don't care about legs. i don't own a vehicle and i walk everywhere. i just let that take care of the legs

i can't do regular pull ups because my power station doesn't allow for them because the two poles holding up the bar are in the way

>>77199618
it takes me 5 minutes to do this entire workout by the way
gonna try to get jacked doing 5 minute workouts lmao

>>77199236
Are you sure he says to do dl to failure? I think it is rather dangerous that, leave a rep on reserve

>>77189906
>>77192272
Damn, I am suprised I never heard of Mark Chaillet. I have been researching him for a few days now and I think I will give it try, if anything, just to see if it works.

>>77200479
Read about his 1996 disqualification too.
(((they))) really want HIT to fail but it won't.

>>77200516
It's just general culture. Sports are more than just tools for health, they become a lifestyle and people want to indulge as much as possible to feel good and escape their own shitty lifes.

It's why endurance is so popular, can be spammed a lot.

Sports should be fun, but ultimately seen as a chore. At least for me, which I will honestly admit. I really like overdoing it to get that sweet adrenaline kick.

>>77199933
Well yeah, up until the DL form starts to break down.

>>77178226
>>77178241
When I do 2 sets I feel like I'm not stimulating the muscle enough, why is that? I am within 8-10 rep range and doing the max weight I can without egolifting it. Number one thing I've noticed is that my lifts have indeed gone up but that's by having more rest days.

>>77201084
The training may not be for you, if more sets work just do more.

High intensity training is based on the idea of efficient muscle recruitment and instant mobilization of resources. It requires tons of adrenaline to function. The adaptations are different than doing volume-based lifting. If you keep trying to reach failure as fast as possible, eventually you will get better at it and hopefully go to total failure in 1 set, but you definitely need the genetics for it.

That's why I dislike the HIT cultists as much as the volume dogmatists. Different people, different genetics, different nervous systems, different levels of excitability etc etc.

But answering your specific case, you probably have volume adaptations that need to change into intensity adaptations, try to reach failure in 1 set and eventually it will work. You need to really go balls to the wall, not just do your usual set and then add 2 reps at the end and call that failure. It starts with the first rep. The adrenaline needs to be there. Different energy system than cortisol based volume workouts. Especially those with high reps.

Tons of broscience here, but these were my experiences.

>>77199618
How is this different than a fullbody 3 day a week novice progression like Starting Strength where you do 3 compounds each workout for 3 sets each except deadlift which is 1 set lol

>>77201084
John heart and kevin richardson talk about this, even Dorian yates, but a lot of lifters think they have to feel a pump and certain kind of pain to "know" they're working a muscle. However in their experience, and for their trainees, one good set to failure will still cause muscle adaption.
I know in my case I never feel pumps or outright exertion outside of the weight magically stopping coming up on a rep for say biceps or abs or deadlifts but I'll have doms like a motherfucker the next few days after the workout.
I hate saying it's a "trust the process" thing but you have to gauge by the after effects like total tiredness and any relevant DOMS post workout

>>77200516
Really interesting. Will incorporate his training in my powerlifting program. I really want to see it on my self.

>>77178226
Who's the guy on the left, is that Dr. Mike Israel when he had hair?

>>77201921
Fuck you because you insulted him with that comparison.

It's Casey Viator.

>>77201084
That feeling is fear.
How do you measure objectively that muscle was stimulated? If you're lifts are going up, then it was.

File: myah pull ups [oddiary] 컴백워밍업 ： 컴백일이 정해졌다 ｜ 가장 현실적인 마야의 직각어깨 루틴 ｜ #옫운완 EP.1 ｜ ODD YOUTH(오드유스) COMEBACK WARMING UP [ghUPPMPmctk]-[00.56.833-01.04.300].webm (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB WEBM

will i get injured if i do one set per exercise without warming up?

one set for chin ups(to failure)
one set for dips(to failure)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f3klx7eDd60?feature=share

it seems mike mentzer even did warm up sets
which is not actual one set

>>77202395
which is not actually one set*

when you do two sets
is the first set a warm up set? how does that work?
are they both to failure?

>>77197664
>I don't know what hyperbole means
Kys anon

>>77201921
Jesus christ.

i might do rest-pause training with chin ups and dips
i'll train to near failure, rest for 15 seconds and crank out more reps
today is a rest day. i have to wait until tomorrow

>>77197383
>mike mentzer getting fat later in life discredits his entire training program in my opinion
Fuck off Israetel, go eat 4 protein bars and shit a concrete block, hope you die of an impaction.

>>77199192
>how does feeling the muscle make sense when it makes you actively weaker?
It doesn't make you weaker. You feel the stretch at the bottom and squeeze at the top. You should be feeling the muscle as you work it. That's simply the reality. If you never feel the muscle, then something is wrong. You will still feel it even with heavier weight if you're doing reps with proper form. MMC itself is a fact of proper training. Not a methodology in spite of what some might push it to be.
>if I really feel the bicep and do it with perfect form, it's not even that useful Irl and I use much less weight
Using a barbell, dumbbell, or machines is not "useful irl" if you want to pretend that strength in general is not useful, that somehow muscle size and strength do not correlate, and that you somehow cannot translate strength from barbell and machine work to carrying sandbags or something else you would want strength for. And even worse the even more nonsensical idea that somehow great form for a specific motion will limit your strength. It just doesn't make any sense.
>No other athletic sport uses a mmc. They just drill techniques that maximize performance without injury risk
Their coaches are sticklers for form because with the compounds typically used to efficiently train athletes, screwing up form can lead to an injury which forces the athlete to stop playing their sport.

Someone give me a tldr on how I can add the Mike Mentzer way to Greyskull LP. I don't go to the gym and only have a basic bench and power rack

>>77205790
Don't. Mentzer is a retard that didnt even train this way

>>77205790
Just take the Greyskull routine and do only one set each.

>>77205794
Are you the ritual poster shitting on this general all the time
>>77205802
So that's basically what Mike's program is, 1 set at 95% one rep max & lift that to failure? I'll take a deeper look into him, I would usually scroll past this gen but been wanting to add more to my workouts

>>77192709
'Tall' and 175 must be skinny as hell brother are you sure you want to do that? I'm 6'6 and 220 and still look skinny. I never care about staying too lean, I'm always at that fine line between abs definition and not, but if I get the abs I look like a fuckin skelly. Keep in mind that 99% of people will be seeing you in clothes outside the gym, and you will look like a bitch. Not exactly fair but it is what it is.

There are 3 methods:
1 High volume, high frequency with a good amount of high intensity-Arnold, golden age guys, Rich Piana, Dave Palumbo

2-Lowish volume, highest levels of intensity, highish frequency-Dorian Yates, Mike Mentzer

3-highish (fluff) volume, generally shit intensity, moderate frequency. Kike Israetel, Jeff "murderer" Nippard, and other omg science faggots.

1>2>3 if on roids
2>1>3 if a natty or athletism is the goal.

>>77178241
mike mentzer did more than one set. he called the preceding warm up sets

one set is actually just two or three sets because warm up sets count as sets

>>77206297
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f3klx7eDd60?feature=share

proof he did more than one set

File: 1599543057177.jpg (72 KB)

72 KB JPG

>>77178226
>Have to do diddlys in mike's ideal routine
>Do 295 for 10 abt 6 weeks ago
>Bump to 305
>Suddenly can only do 4 and it's a fucking struggle getting the bar off the ground
>Grip keeps failing the past month
>It's only 10 extra lbs on the bar
I want to cut DL but Mike said it's the most productive total body exercise and the exertion should help lower myostatin and release lean-mass increasing inflammatory cytokines.
Should I back down to 295 and maybe go for 12-14 or just stay with the 305 even though I'm at a lower rep range?

>>77205905
100% but I have cursed bodyfat distribution and I have to be 12% or under to not have lovehandles or mantits. I posted up in /cbt/ a few times you can see it there.

File: 17472022694350183.webm (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB WEBM

Did he train to failure?

>>77207123
Damn that fella is doing a great job. The weight is small now, but he will make quick gainz training hard like that. Probably jacked as hell already.

>>77207123
To absolute failure, the day after that he must have gained half a kilo of muscle just on the triceps