Thread: Train in accordance with your muscle fiber type: DD's old school H.I.T. revisited

Oh, and in relationship to the title of the thread, the reason HIT works well for me is simply because I am predominantly fast twitch muscle fibers. It's hard to evaluate that in terms of compound movements (because fiber type is different depending on muscle group), however, doing the 200 x 4 reps (when I was already EXTREMELY fatigued), the third one was as easy as the first and then I literally couldn't finish the 4th.

HIT is most productive for predominantly fast twitch muscle fibers.

Back workout:

Nautilus pullovers: 210 x 12 (one arm negatives) + 1 regular rep; 265 (entire rack + 10) x 7
Nautilus seated row: 265 (entire rack + 10) x 11 (25 seconds) x 7 (25 seconds) x 5
T-Bar rows: 6 plates + 25: x 9 (5 plate x 3 warmup)
Barbell curl: 130 x 11
Dumbbell curls: 75 x 8

For any of you physics buffs, the reason curls get so hard is because you have to calculate the distance of the moment arm times the weight to calculate necessary torque to move the weight. Multiplying 65 pounds, a heavy weight, by 18 inches garners 97.5 foot pounds of torque when the moment arm is perfectly perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

Whereas a 10 pound increase requires 112.5 foot pounds of torque - and that's per arm.

And that's some somewhat fallaciously assuming an 18 inch distance between the weight and the center of the rotation of the bicep, which is probably more like 20 or so inches.

The completely contracted point of the curl has a moment arm of 0, which means there is literally no torque required by the bicep at that point, and the same is true when you are holding the weight at your side (although the forearms are performing stabilizing work and the weight itself is pulling your shoulder joint down).

Whenever I go higher that 75 pounds, my tendons become hyper extended and I get injured.

So how frequently will you be hitting the gym?

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

So how frequently will you be hitting the gym?

3 or 4 times a week.

chest workout, back workout... would those two other days be shoulders/arms and legs?

no, push / pull / legs

I say chest and back because those are the largest muscles used, it's a habit, but it's a p/p/l split.

Got it.

Well you know you got a fan in me. Looking forward to seeing this pan out.

Will you be posting any pics?

For any of you interested in the role of genetics, let me say that I am a trainer with Marvelous Melvin Anthony's brother Steve. He is almost unbelievably large, about six foot and 280 pounds with the largest deltoids I've ever seen on a human being in person.

He trains 2 hours a day 6 days a week, and his level of strength is at or below Camarosuper6 (my brothers) - and my brother is 3 inches taller and 272 pounds. I won't hypothesize on what he's taking, if anything, he is simply a complete and utter genetic freak.

Yes I'll be posting pics.

Oh, and on that, Steve is one of the nicest guys at my gym and I'm helping him attain other certification so he can earn more money there.

Revised bodyweight: 232.5

I like your journals.

Despite our difference in training philosophy, I'm thinking of giving a workout like yours or camaro's a whirl.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Back workout:

Nautilus pullovers: 210 x 12 (one arm negatives) + 1 regular rep; 265 (entire rack + 10) x 7
Nautilus seated row: 265 (entire rack + 10) x 11 (25 seconds) x 7 (25 seconds) x 5
T-Bar rows: 6 plates + 25: x 9 (5 plate x 3 warmup)
Barbell curl: 130 x 11
Dumbbell curls: 75 x 8

For any of you physics buffs, the reason curls get so hard is because you have to calculate the distance of the moment arm times the weight to calculate necessary torque to move the weight. Multiplying 65 pounds, a heavy weight, by 18 inches garners 97.5 foot pounds of torque when the moment arm is perfectly perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

Whereas a 10 pound increase requires 112.5 foot pounds of torque - and that's per arm.

And that's some somewhat fallaciously assuming an 18 inch distance between the weight and the center of the rotation of the bicep, which is probably more like 20 or so inches.

The completely contracted point of the curl has a moment arm of 0, which means there is literally no torque required by the bicep at that point, and the same is true when you are holding the weight at your side (although the forearms are performing stabilizing work and the weight itself is pulling your shoulder joint down).

Whenever I go higher that 75 pounds, my tendons become hyper extended and I get injured.

So this is on the same day as the pushes?

The physics stuff, how does that help a person? Is this to help figure out a decent weight?

Originally Posted by Witchblade

I like your journals.

Despite our difference in training philosophy, I'm thinking of giving a workout like yours or camaro's a whirl.

It's not the end all be all, I would never say that, but I couldn't see myself doing anything resembling a normal "high volume" routine. Maybe I'm in a psychological trap, but doing a simply time cost-benefit is all I need to believe in the superiority of this style of methodology.

That, and I work at the gym all day and I'd hate to spend more time there.

Thanks though

Originally Posted by AKIRA

So this is on the same day as the pushes?

The physics stuff, how does that help a person? Is this to help figure out a decent weight?

Understanding the physics should demonstrate the inferiority of free weight exercises unless you can modify the weight in 1/4, 1/2, or 1 pound increments. Unfortunately few people would even consider this.

A 1/2 pound increment would only increase the torque a foot pound and a half, which would allow for a slower adaptation (paticularly for the tendons) and increase gains in the exercise more comprehensively, without sacrificing form (and becoming injured).

I read that twice.. On the 2nd time I understood it, thankfully. I was just going to say "huh?" Then I thought, why not read it again.

Were just having a phyics moment or is this going to be a progression? (i think reading things twice)

Whats a good way to determine the type of muscle fibers one has?

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

It's not the end all be all, I would never say that, but I couldn't see myself doing anything resembling a normal "high volume" routine. Maybe I'm in a psychological trap, but doing a simply time cost-benefit is all I need to believe in the superiority of this style of methodology.

That, and I work at the gym all day and I'd hate to spend more time there.

Thanks though

I don't have any time to post or do anything....pretty much work and study.

So I am going to make my one post here tonight.....I am not a fan of very high volume programs either. I do think that some benefit can be gained from doing a moderate volume of work during some periods of training and then switching it to a lower volume and more intense period of training....such as you are describing in the first post of your journal. I think there lies the true balance between accumulation and intensification and how we can use it to our advantage to continue progress. I do similiar things in balancing between higher volume periods and lower volume but more intense periods. Such as the past 4 weeks were I was just doing rest pause sets with very little rest. I do think that often times people blow the volume out of the water and just do way to much. Finding the balance is critical and then alternating between the phases can be very effective.

if nothing else, variety is the stimulus for continued growth (or strength).

Originally Posted by PreMier

Whats a good way to determine the type of muscle fibers one has?

muscle biopsie...lol

so basically they chop ya up..

You could guesstimate by comparing your 10RM, 7RM, 4RM and 1RM to the standard templates and see where you're stronger. If your 1RM is 10% higher than the standard, relative to your 10RM, you might be fast twitch dominant (in the tested muscle groups).

It's not much, but it's a start.

The best way to test for fiber type is to use a single joint movement that has little involvement from other groups and gauge how many reps you can do at 80 percent of your one rep max. You can also do this with compound movements but it's almost impossible to tell which muscle fails first and what are still fresh.

Originally Posted by P-funk

I don't have any time to post or do anything....pretty much work and study.

So I am going to make my one post here tonight.....I am not a fan of very high volume programs either. I do think that some benefit can be gained from doing a moderate volume of work during some periods of training and then switching it to a lower volume and more intense period of training....such as you are describing in the first post of your journal. I think there lies the true balance between accumulation and intensification and how we can use it to our advantage to continue progress. I do similiar things in balancing between higher volume periods and lower volume but more intense periods. Such as the past 4 weeks were I was just doing rest pause sets with very little rest. I do think that often times people blow the volume out of the water and just do way to much. Finding the balance is critical and then alternating between the phases can be very effective.

if nothing else, variety is the stimulus for continued growth (or strength).

Yeah I agree one hundred percent. The problem with me is my own time constraints, and I get into a trap of going "gut instinct" and having a problem reducing the actual level of volume. I also have trouble reducing the level of intensity, which is probably stunting my growth to some degree.

It's obvious that some people will benefit from high intense, single set exercise because it has worked for a very large number of people, but I have trouble seeing thin, lance armstrong types getting anything other than pathetic results from it. It's an issue of figuring out a person's specific physiological response - which I've also found is amazingly hard, because I have some clients who appear to be fast twitch dominant with extremely fast metabolisms and extremely good recovery rates, with short muscle bellies, long tendons, and long arms and legs. Lots of potential in some respects, very little in others.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Current bodyweight: 230

I have been training with high volume (2-3 sets for 4-5 exercises) in an enormously intense fashion for at least 6 months, and have since determined that it just ain't working.

So I immediately switched to single set to failure for 2-3 exercises for each body part (in particular my chest) and other compound movements (pull ups, military press, etc).

The results are in for the chest workout:

Dumbbell bench press: 115 x 8 (70 x 6 warmup)

Military press: 235 x 8 (135 x 6 warmup)

Nautilus horizontal chest press: 175 x 10 (one arm negatives) + 2 "regular" ; 200 x 4

Rear delt flye: 200 x 8 (25 seconds) x 4 (25 seconds) x 2

CG bench press: 225 x 5 (30 seconds) x 2


I had a 10 pound increase from the last "one set to failure" exercises, as listed:

Military press: 225 x 8
DB press: 110 x 8
Rear delt flyes: 180 x 10
Nautilus horizontal press: 165 x 10


I expect these gains to be consistent for at least 6 weeks, at which point I'll probably be so close to my genetical potential it will be a waste to change the variables (although I will).

I hope to finish at 240 pounds.

Sounds like Dennis Wolf and hiis low upper pec fullness issue throwing out his entire overall proportion all over .. but yrs earlier.

If they're the weights you're doing and you weigh what you said, you'd get morre weight out of bwe's.
When you're doing a variety of compounds, it's highly like that unless you bear it in mind and tweak to cater for it, that you're going to end up getting a better hypertrophy in one area over another for the lower load and then rvs for the muscle or main muscles that are working in conjunction with those others.

I posted an article on the 'ab question' thread. If you 're happy with what you're doing then cool . .but i highly recommend you go take another look.

Originally Posted by Blooming Lotus

Sounds like Dennis Wolf and hiis low upper pec fullness issue throwing out his entire overall proportion all over .. but yrs earlier.

If they're the weights you're doing and you weigh what you said, you'd get morre weight out of bwe's.
When you're doing a variety of compounds, it's highly like that unless you bear it in mind and tweak to cater for it, that you're going to end up getting a better hypertrophy in one area over another for the lower load and then rvs for the muscle or main muscles that are working in conjunction with those others.

I posted an article on the 'ab question' thread. If you 're happy with what you're doing then cool . .but i highly recommend you go take another look.

What the hell are you talking about.

Pull workout:

Nautilus pullovers: 220 x 12 (one arm negatives) + 3 regulars
Naut'l compound rows: 279 x 11 (25 seconsd) x 5 (25 seconds) x 4
T-bar rows: 6 plates + 25 x 10 (5 plate warm up)
Barbell curls: 135 x 9 (1 minute) x 4
Negative only preacher curls (one arm): 70 x 12
Shrugs: 6 plates + 20: x 14 (25 seconds) x 4

I will be performing my leg workout in two days. I need my manta ray back so I postponed it one workout. I am excited about getting back into heavy squats.

Originally Posted by Blooming Lotus

Sounds like Dennis Wolf and hiis low upper pec fullness issue throwing out his entire overall proportion all over .. but yrs earlier.

If they're the weights you're doing and you weigh what you said, you'd get morre weight out of bwe's.
When you're doing a variety of compounds, it's highly like that unless you bear it in mind and tweak to cater for it, that you're going to end up getting a better hypertrophy in one area over another for the lower load and then rvs for the muscle or main muscles that are working in conjunction with those others.

I posted an article on the 'ab question' thread. If you 're happy with what you're doing then cool . .but i highly recommend you go take another look.

Are you saying I will do better with body weight exercises?? What the hell are you talking about?

If they're the weights you're doing and you weigh what you said, you'd get morre weight out of bwe's.

This makes no sense as far as syntax is concerned.

When you're doing a variety of compounds, it's highly like that unless you bear it in mind and tweak to cater for it, that you're going to end up getting a better hypertrophy in one area over another for the lower load and then rvs for the muscle or main muscles that are working in conjunction with those others.

WHAT?????????????

Just the last two weeks of Mike switching from 2 sets to 1 set, has seen a signifigant increase in strength in all major exercises.

Okay. So what i'm concluding is, that i believe if you took the bwe over the % weight of that you have been lifting and cycled in some volume on those bwe - and i'm going 3 weeks - you may like to do it differently , it would increase your 1rm through increasing the load at which your 75% kicks in.
If you then drop off and lower volume and eat bigger carbs even in trade off for an extra protein or 2 you might 've had during the last phase, then i believe you would gain both strength and size and have an allround better better performance and asthetic. Dont forget seperate speed training for each each group on the MuscularEndurance phase, and to maintain your flexibilty and stretch regime throughout
and thaat is my $0.02c worth of input for you.