Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aesthetics inspired. Looking for a good bodyweight workout that's better...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by OldSchhool View Post
    That's true, I believe that is what the late great Mike Mentzer was known to do.

    I will only do a few reps of an exercise as a warm up, just to ' grease the groove ' so to speak. If you are performing your reps slowly and strictly then there is no real reason to perform multiple warm up sets. If I do a set and manage 8 reps then the first 7 of those were my warm up.
    Doggcrap or Dorian Yates style HIT as well, naming it "HIT" or "Volume" becomes a matter of semantic's! Personally I often train like that as well, pyramiding up to an all-out set, first going to breakdown of form, maybe 8 reps, then 1-2 mini sets with very short pause, and then rest pause singles, and then maybe(if in the mood!), eccentric only to complete failure...
    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

    - Schopenhauer

    Comment


    • #32
      Lift heavy like 5 sets 5 rep maxes. Reverse pyramid style. Major lifts. All you need it a weight vest, pull up bar and a rope

      Sprint post lift. tabata style...till your lungs burn like hell

      Do some balance/flexibility like yoga, Pilates, gymnatics, etc...to work on the weak points

      Keep your protein high, along with your primal diet.

      Slow move whenever you can, elevated heart rate but not cortisol high

      3 weeks you will see a major difference.

      Comment


      • #33
        I did that volume crap (Franco Columbu's) when I was 20 and got myself conically overtrained. I was working out 6 days per week for up to 2 hours per day on a split routine. Got a chronic low back injury from it and had to quit for a year to year and a half. I had more motivation then sense. When I got back to lifting again Mike Mentzer was writing to muscle and fitness. His workout was working out 40 min 4 days per week on a split routine. When I followed his HIT stuff my bodyweight went up to over 200lbs. Later a gym-owner friend and I did Ellington Darden's High Intensity Bodybuilding routine. It was a full-body routine 3 days per week. The goal was to cut the workout time down and do every set to failure; we got the workout down to 40 min. I gained weight at a rate of about 2lbs per week (202-216lb) over a period of 6 weeks; I'm 5ft 11". My friend gained more. He had been doing a traditional routine. On day one he threw up his lunch. Weight used and sets completed were all documented. When you get 10 reps (20 on squats) you added (IIRC) 5% weight on the next workout. I gained on every lift. IMO Darden's routine was still too much. By the end of 6 - 8 weeks we were overtraining and had to back off. We ended up going back to our own workout. I followed a HIT split routine of 4 days per week.

        Today I might do 2 sets depending on how I feel and since I no longer have a training partner I can't do negatives so I strip the weight off or just lower the weight as slowly (even stopping) on the final rep. The goal with HIT has more to do with totally fatiguing the muscle in less than a couple minutes making sure your using enough weight.

        Just my opinion but I believe guys like Arnold and Franco could get away with their high volume training since they were on steroids and did little else (probably sleep alot, too). I just know that when I did it my weight gain stopped at 185lbs. If I tried to eat more (that's what you were supposed to do) I only put on fat.

        In my late 40's (around 47) I cut back to once a week per bodypart on a 3 days per week split workout. I got to my personal best in the bench press at 365lbs and was wondering why I hadn't been doing that all along. My shoulders joints went to hurting and had to back off that. I have some arthritis in my shoulders (confirmed by a body scan at the Cooper Aerobics Center during a physical at age 50), probably from doing too much chronic lifting during the week over a long period of time/years.

        Today, I'm 56, I weight ~210, my percent of BF is maybe 15% (goal is ~10%) and my workout is full body on Mondays with isolation exercises on Tuesdays. I walk about 4 miler per day which includes 8 Tabata-style sprints on Thursdays. I'll throw in some P90X DVD stretches once, maybe twice per week. I think it's true that a muscle (if worked hard enough) can take 5 to 10 days to recover and grow/adapt. So if I'm giving myself 6 days off of weights I don't see a problem with doing the same bodypart 2 days in a row. I know that when I've taken a month off I didn't loose any muscle or have to go down on the weight I'd been using. From a Primal/Paleo POV I think Grok would be much better served by having stamina over a lot of bulk. That maybe why most women prefer that body build....would likely have given a hunter/fighter better survivability over the MR Olympias you see today.
        Last edited by Scott F; 09-20-2013, 11:35 AM.
        Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

        Comment


        • #34
          This is all well and good for the average person who doesnt like to spend time in the gym and wants decent gains with minimal time. It doesnt make it the best possible way of training for everything else though, which is my only grudge with HIT fanatics. The fact that no elite level powerlifter, strongman, weightlifter and dare i say, bodybuilder trains that way is proof enough tha HIT is not optimal for high level strength and size.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Scott F View Post
            From a Primal/Paleo POV I think Grok would be much better served by having stamina over a lot of bulk. That maybe why most women prefer that body build....would likely have given a hunter/fighter better survivability over the MR Olympias you see today.
            This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build. Or look at Doug Young, and you can see what an early human would want to look like. You really can't be too strong, and without steroids you really can't get to the point where the extra strength or size becomes a disadvantage. It might not be worth it to be a 350lb powerlifter, but you can't tell me you'd want to have to have to fight him in nature. Especially in the era before weapons, yikes.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Zach View Post
              This is all well and good for the average person who doesnt like to spend time in the gym and wants decent gains with minimal time. It doesnt make it the best possible way of training for everything else though, which is my only grudge with HIT fanatics. The fact that no elite level powerlifter, strongman, weightlifter and dare i say, bodybuilder trains that way is proof enough tha HIT is not optimal for high level strength and size.
              Yep. in the '80s I actually thought time would prove HIT superior but it just didn't happen.
              There is also an equally bone-headed group that maintains HIT is utterly worthless.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dickson View Post
                This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build.
                Maybe it depends on what "eco-system" or historical epoch you are living in? I may be wrong, but I think that if you want to mate in a modern urban eco-system that most females will prefer a less freakish build though...
                "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                - Schopenhauer

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
                  Yep. in the '80s I actually thought time would prove HIT superior but it just didn't happen.
                  There is also an equally bone-headed group that maintains HIT is utterly worthless.
                  Well, I think the concept of HIT is a better idea than the Nautilus machines ever were.
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Dickson View Post
                    This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build. Or look at Doug Young, and you can see what an early human would want to look like. You really can't be too strong, and without steroids you really can't get to the point where the extra strength or size becomes a disadvantage. It might not be worth it to be a 350lb powerlifter, but you can't tell me you'd want to have to have to fight him in nature. Especially in the era before weapons, yikes.
                    I strongly disagree.
                    Extant pictures of real hunter gatherers show muscular but light builds that SSers would describe as skinny and weak.
                    So much of living as a hunter is moving your own bodyweight through space a lot.
                    I think if a powerlifter type were magically transported to that lifestyle he would walk and run off the extra mass rapidly.

                    Domestic dogs can be bred very muscular with someone to feed them.
                    The wild canines are built light to feed themselves.

                    There's no such thing as a human era without weapons.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                      Maybe it depends on what "eco-system" or historical epoch you are living in? I may be wrong, but I think that if you want to mate in a modern urban eco-system that most females will prefer a less freakish build though...
                      I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dickson View Post
                        I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...
                        Maybe he had some other qualities in addition then?
                        "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                        - Schopenhauer

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Dickson View Post
                          I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...
                          He does???

                          Google has him at 7-1 275.
                          quite a lot different than 6-7 280

                          Wilt's build is more like I had in mind. Shrunk to normal height.
                          Though none of the pictures I googled show him as very muscular/ripped

                          Why are we talking about height?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                            Well, I think the concept of HIT is a better idea than the Nautilus machines ever were.
                            I think there are a few reasons why it isn't more popular, one being that it's bloody hard work (okay every now and again but you have to have slight masochistic tendencies to do it all the time), boredom can set in(Most people love variety) and one that I hear a lot is that some people just love spending hours working out....they don't want to do a few high intensity sets and go home, they enjoy doing set after set of multiple exercises per body part.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Obviously hunter gatherer builds would favor light, short and slim with exceptional strength. The less muscle you have, the faster you can be and less you need to eat. Now move forward in time to an agricultural era environment with lots of warring, thats when bigger builds would be favored. Of course you want some giants on your side in a fight, and if things like climbing, running and jumping are not much of a concern as well as access to ample calories, strength and size is imperative.

                              Either way, strength relative to body weight is king. Maybe not in super heavyweight lifting, but in every other aspect of life.

                              EDIT: actually even in super heavyweights since the lighter lifter will win when totals are tied and at a certain point, excess fat does not give any more advantage. Its why elite lifters now have visible abs.
                              Last edited by Zach; 09-20-2013, 02:35 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by OldSchhool View Post
                                I think there are a few reasons why it isn't more popular, one being that it's bloody hard work (okay every now and again but you have to have slight masochistic tendencies to do it all the time), boredom can set in(Most people love variety) and one that I hear a lot is that some people just love spending hours working out....they don't want to do a few high intensity sets and go home, they enjoy doing set after set of multiple exercises per body part.
                                My thoughts on that is yes, its not fun to destroy a muscle group and have in murdered for a few days, and yes it is boring if you are a person who enjoys lifting. I think though that there is a limit to how effect that type of training can be. I always go to the strongest humans on earth when talking about this and time and again, frequency is key. You cant train frequently if you blow your load on day one. HIT also favors size over strength. Its just not practical to do full body movements in a HIT fashion. Especially the olympic and power lifts (besides bench). So that is why it is a very decent protocol for bodybuilding and good for relative strength gains but completely incompatible for strength sports.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X