Progress slow, try this.... my story about overtraining

[Dante B.]

I lost my original response as my computer froze, so here is the short of it:

Genetics are the door that allows someone more or less room to carry a given package (system) in tow. Everyone is not the same in that regard, as some are "physical geniuses," and most people are more than capable of exceeding their current limitations as long as they approach the task with thought.

How do you know how I've trained? Reread my original post, I didn't say that HIT didn't "work," or couldn't work. Rather, there is no one "true" way to train. There are fundamentals to physiology, that's for certain. But genetics as well as approach are a key factor that allows someone to make the most of a given method of training (for a period of time).

So I didn't agree with you on any count, unless you drop the contexts of what I said.

HIT isn't "the" way to train. "High volume" isn't either. And depending on one's circumstances (life, work, stress), they should tailor their routine to fit the condition if they wish to reap optimal gains.

 

[Flex]

From my own experience and the experience of everyone i know (again, who are bigger than usual guys) i think volume training is the best way to go. thats my opinion.

as far as the time demands of volume training, if you can't find an hour or an hour and a half to train, then don't. that's your choice. if BB is not a priority, thats not my problem. i have probably as busy a schedule as anyone. i have class all week, including 2 three hour night classes. on top of that, i work almost every morning, plus some afternoons, some nights and some weekends. i have a shitload of schoolwork at all times. with all that a trying to have some sort of personal life, i ALWAYS make time for the gym. to me, thats the most important thing.

IMO, i feel 1 set to muscular failure does NOT stimulate maximal muscle growth. again, thats my opinion. volume is what me, my buddies and all the enormous dudes do at my gym.

LIke i said before, i dont feel like debating this anymore. i may try hit one day, maybe if i stop growing from volume. and its not even high volume that we partake in, i'd say medium volume. 10-15 sets to failure. for now, you can stick to your H.I.T., we'll stick to our volume. "why fix something that's not broken". plain and simple.

 

[Dale Mabry]

camaro, let me interpret what i believe Dante is so eleoquently trying to tell you...

You have been training real hard, but your muscles haven't been doing what you want them to do. Is this issue at the muscle? Prolly not.

The Prognosis: Your CNS needs a rest, by knocking volume down, you are doing just that. You are more or less in a state of rest now, in terms of total volume, with the HIT style which should give your CNS time to recuperate.

What a large majority of the population forgets is that strength does not occur ONLY at the muscle. You can fail at a weight for many reasons:

1)Lack of Neuromuscular coordination
2)Actual failure at the muscle
3)Nutritional deficiencies
4)Psychological issue
5)CNS overstimulation (Overtraining)

Programming your workout with alternating periods of higher volume/intensity and periods of lower volume/intensity is the basis behind periodization.

 

[rburton]

Camarosuper6: There are others who think like you; you can find them at high-intensity .net, just to name one site.

 

[rburton]

Originally posted by Dante B.
I lost my original response as my computer froze, so here is the short of it:

Genetics are the door that allows someone more or less room to carry a given package (system) in tow. Everyone is not the same in that regard, as some are "physical geniuses," and most people are more than capable of exceeding their current limitations as long as they approach the task with thought.

How do you know how I've trained? Reread my original post, I didn't say that HIT didn't "work," or couldn't work. Rather, there is no one "true" way to train. There are fundamentals to physiology, that's for certain. But genetics as well as approach are a key factor that allows someone to make the most of a given method of training (for a period of time).

So I didn't agree with you on any count, unless you drop the contexts of what I said.

HIT isn't "the" way to train. "High volume" isn't either. And depending on one's circumstances (life, work, stress), they should tailor their routine to fit the condition if they wish to reap optimal gains.

Interesting that you still make comments that are agreeable with my posts. To wit, I never commented about your training, I have simple stated that one needs to understand the physiological principles that drive effective training. Furthermore, you do not disprove my view that HIT is more effective than volume by your statement that HIT isn't the way to train. High volume isn't either. If you'll read my posts again, you'll see that I am taking a position that HIT is more effective and more efficient than volume training, not the only way to train.

 

[rburton]

Originally posted by Flex
From my own experience and the experience of everyone i know (again, who are bigger than usual guys) i think volume training is the best way to go. thats my opinion.

as far as the time demands of volume training, if you can't find an hour or an hour and a half to train, then don't. that's your choice. if BB is not a priority, thats not my problem. i have probably as busy a schedule as anyone. i have class all week, including 2 three hour night classes. on top of that, i work almost every morning, plus some afternoons, some nights and some weekends. i have a shitload of schoolwork at all times. with all that a trying to have some sort of personal life, i ALWAYS make time for the gym. to me, thats the most important thing.

IMO, i feel 1 set to muscular failure does NOT stimulate maximal muscle growth. again, thats my opinion. volume is what me, my buddies and all the enormous dudes do at my gym.

LIke i said before, i dont feel like debating this anymore. i may try hit one day, maybe if i stop growing from volume. and its not even high volume that we partake in, i'd say medium volume. 10-15 sets to failure. for now, you can stick to your H.I.T., we'll stick to our volume. "why fix something that's not broken". plain and simple.

I agree, there is no further need to debate; however, an exchange of ideas is a good thing. I, too, take classes. In addition to working a job 60+ hours per week, I am working toward a 2nd Master's Degree, which requires that I attend class two times weekly, 3 hr. per session, plus complete an independent study for a third class. In addition, I have family obligations, ie. wife, children, etc.

As far as your opinion about one set stimulating maximal muscular growth, why train beyond one set when all that is required is one set, assumming that you (or anyone, for that matter) are (is) truly working the set to momentary muscular failure? Anything beyond this protocol is a waste and inefficient.

However, you may do as you choose, of course, but if you are interested in learning more about HIT/HD, access high-intensity.net, or purchase Mike Mentzer's works from e-bay, amazon, etc (do a google search, if necessary).

I do hope that your training protocol works for you, and if you would like to discuss HIT, or debate it in more detail, please post it on this site.

 

[Flex]

Dude, that's what i'm trying to tell you. i dont care about H.I.T. or Mike Mentzer or any of that stuff. i offered my opinion about it, thats it. I DONT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ANYMORE. i understand an exchange of ideas is a good thing so the rest of everyone can learn. but you have your opinion of what works, and i have mine. if you want to keep talking about HIT, go ahead, but i dont.

 

[HoldDaMayo]

Flex, I know you don't want to discuss HIT... but can we discuss your Ronnie Coleman quote... is the quote supposed to show how retarded he is... or is it supposed to say most people are lazy?

 

[Flex]

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
Flex, I know you don't want to discuss HIT... but can we discuss your Ronnie Coleman quote... is the quote supposed to show how retarded he is... or is it supposed to say most people are lazy?

When Ronnie says it, i guess its mostly how people are lazy, but it shows a sample of how "not smart" (to be nice) he is when you here him pronounce his words.

Personally, i put it in there cuz it seems to me like a good at least 75% of people who "bodybuild" look for the easy way out. people ask me and my buddys all the time: "dude, what supplements do you take, have you heard of NO2, what about 1-AD, do you lift often, how long will it take for me to get as big as you? and so many other questions.

Personally, its the hardcore killing myself in the gym that i love, and also the reason me and my boys reap the best benefits we do. Therefore, "Everybody wanna be a bodybuilda, aint nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weight" haha.

alls i remember is he says it in one of his videos before he lifts a ridiculous amount of weight (it might be when he front squats 585lb for like 8 reps, but i'm not sure)

 

[Flex]

One more final thought about H.I.T......(courtesy of Mr. John Defendis.....defendis.com)

"Squatting 450 for 40 reps to the floor, warming up with 315 on the Incline press for 30 reps, doing 50 sets of barbell curls for biceps and 60 sets of heavy back work! Thats what is was all about. That was the pinnacle of greatness! I thrived on my reputation of being one of the hardest training bodybuilders in the country. As I sit here and think back I realize that it was always about the hard workouts and the discipline it took to move those weights and finish those sets.
Everybody always told me that I was overtraining. They always said that I would burnout and not last. I sit here and laugh when I think about the 34 years that I have been training. I am still training and I feel great. I am 260 and hard at 44 years old.
Still playing with weights that would crush 20 year olds that are juiced up on every drug in the book.

I always believed in high volume intense workouts. The workouts that were originated by champions like Arnold, Tom Platz and Serge Nubret. Unfortunately the high volume workouts never became real popular. Mentzers Heavy Duty one set and two set workouts were more the norm because we live in a world full of lazy mother fuckers. Everybody bought into the bullshit...half hour workouts so they had more time to be lazy. With all due respect to Mike Mentzer and his accomplishments...why was it that he hadn't trained for the last twenty years and was in the worst shape of his life before his sad and tragic death?
If the Heavy Duty system was developed to prevent burnout, why did he ultimately burnout 20 years ago? Why was it that people still embraced every article that he had written prior to his passing and many of them adopted the Heavy Duty system?
It is a phenomenon that has amazed me to this day.
Gone are the days of the hardcore gyms. The gyms that were engulfed in the atmosphere of blood, sweat and guts. Those gyms have been replaced by the Family Fitness Centers, Richard Simmons and electronic vibrating fuckin abdominal devices.
I miss the gladiators and the warriors that once trained behind the walls of Mr. America's gym in New York. I miss the competitions that we had in the gym to see who trained the hardest and who didn't make it to their cars after the workouts.
I miss the gyms that were loaded with barbells and dumbbells and void of cardiovascular equipment. Cardiovascular equipment? Bikes, treadmills, stairmachines? No way...they didn't exist!"
-John Defendis

 

[maniclion]

You know what the best training I ever did was. Pushing shopping carts for Wal-mart for a summer job. I went from a 125 pound second string free safety my junior year of HS to a 160 pound starting ironman player. I was pushing 300 pound linemen with ease. Everyone should push carts forget about lifting.
Maybe it was puberty or not but what I want to say is that to make gains you have to put stress on the body, if you have done the same work for an extended period it is no longer as stressful. Therefore there is no end all be all way to train. Variety is the key.

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by rburton
Thank you for agreeing with my posts, even if you did not realize you were doing so. All people are the same, even though genetic and cultural variations are present. Therefore, we all learn and gain physically in the same way, though there may not be a difference in the degree or level of gaining/learning in the actual systemic process of learning/gaining. For instance, you mention that insanity is doing the same thing repetitively, expecting the same results--I agree with you completely; however, Mike Mentzer stated that we neeed to be our own personal trainers, which means that we must apply the principles of exercise physiology to determine the most effective method for gaining strength/mass for those of us who strength train. To further clarify my position, consider the following: Train with either a split or full body routine, no more than 4 sets per workout for 6 months. While doing this, make sure that you take each set to momentary muscular failure (which requires more effort and energy than most people think). In addition, train only once every 4-7 days. Once you have truly experienced HIT/HD, you will be in a better position to make statements about insanity. (BTW I am a Psychologist by training so I know what constitutes insanity.)

Note: When conducting your experiment so that you may collect accurate empirical evidence, refrain from performing aerobics; however, it is acceptable to eat a healthy diet.

I sincerely hope that you aren't serious about the statement that I bolded, if you are a practicing psych. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest you stop using your original college textbook as a reference.

Actually, upon consideration, your analogy does have some application, here. Do all people have the same types of neurons? Yes. Do the same reactions - at the biochemical level - trigger dendritic proliferation? Sure. But...so what? To complete a given math problem, the brain selectively recruits the dorsolateral prefrontal lobe, the entorhinal cortex, the temporal lobes and the hippocampus; which part will get recruited and stressed, and in what order, depends entirely upon differential development in the different components, emotional stress, gender, and so much else that it would be a waste of my time to even do the subject remedial treatment. To speak of the "systemic process of learning" is insanely ignorant, and, frighteningly so when coming from a psychologist.

Consider your "muscle gaining" example, in relation to the above paragraph.

Anecdotally, I've used both HIT - working every muscle every 9 days - and more frequent workouts (mainly variations on HST). Did I gain as much strength and muscle using the HST? Sure, in terms of pure strength. Each workout also left me totally trashed afterwards, for several hours. My muscle endurance became non-existent. My cardio endurance decreased. HIT gave me the same mass increase...however, mass is about the least of my reasons for lifting. To be entirely honest, I couldn't care less about how much I weigh. I struggled for two years to add 40 lbs, and lost all of it during my first three months of school. Weight comes and goes; I just like lifting.

Oh, and I forgot about the single reason I will never use HIT again...the gross apathy that evolves from the boredom of doing the same damn thing, all the time

 

[rburton]

Originally posted by Section 8
I sincerely hope that you aren't serious about the statement that I bolded, if you are a practicing psych. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest you stop using your original college textbook as a reference.

Actually, upon consideration, your analogy does have some application, here. Do all people have the same types of neurons? Yes. Do the same reactions - at the biochemical level - trigger dendritic proliferation? Sure. But...so what? To complete a given math problem, the brain selectively recruits the dorsolateral prefrontal lobe, the entorhinal cortex, the temporal lobes and the hippocampus; which part will get recruited and stressed, and in what order, depends entirely upon differential development in the different components, emotional stress, gender, and so much else that it would be a waste of my time to even do the subject remedial treatment. To speak of the "systemic process of learning" is insanely ignorant, and, frighteningly so when coming from a psychologist.

My apologies, the word NOT should not have been included within the statement that I made. We all are the same, except for genetic/cultural variations, which requires that we learn/acquire knowledge or physical attributes in the same way, though through varying degrees or levels of acquisition. To think otherwise automatically assumes that each individual human being is compeletely different, thus requiring an unique method for learning and acquiring information. If this is true, then we as people have nothing, at all, in common with each other; amazing that we have developed/evolved as we have, isn't it?

Consider your "muscle gaining" example, in relation to the above paragraph.

Anecdotally, I've used both HIT - working every muscle every 9 days - and more frequent workouts (mainly variations on HST). Did I gain as much strength and muscle using the HST? Sure, in terms of pure strength. Each workout also left me totally trashed afterwards, for several hours. My muscle endurance became non-existent. My cardio endurance decreased. HIT gave me the same mass increase...however, mass is about the least of my reasons for lifting. To be entirely honest, I couldn't care less about how much I weigh. I struggled for two years to add 40 lbs, and lost all of it during my first three months of school. Weight comes and goes; I just like lifting.

Oh, and I forgot about the single reason I will never use HIT again...the gross apathy that evolves from the boredom of doing the same damn thing, all the time

 

[rburton]

Section 8, I apoligize that my reply to your post is inbedded within your post. My response is now within the 3rd paragraph of your response.

BTW, as a psychologist and educator, I truly believe that we need to have absolute standards, whether they are biological or psychological in nature. In other words, absolute truths are not relative; ponder upon that, if you will.

 

[HoldDaMayo]

Originally posted by rburton
absolute truths are not relative; ponder upon that, if you will.

our knowledge to determine any absolute truths is based on the assumption our physiological science is 100% correct in every aspect... Cancer and AIDS run rampant...

I don't believe there are very many ABSOLUTE truths when it comes to bodybuilding...

 

[Section 8]

Thanks for pointing that out, I would have missed it.

Originally posted by rburton
My apologies, the word NOT should not have been included within the statement that I made. We all are the same, except for genetic/cultural variations, which requires that we learn/acquire knowledge or physical attributes in the same way, though through varying degrees or levels of acquisition. To think otherwise automatically assumes that each individual human being is compeletely different, thus requiring an unique method for learning and acquiring information. If this is true, then we as people have nothing, at all, in common with each other; amazing that we have developed/evolved as we have, isn't it?

BTW, as a psychologist and educator, I truly believe that we need to have absolute standards, whether they are biological or psychological in nature. In other words, absolute truths are not relative; ponder upon that, if you will.

If you are an educator, then I'm sure you must be aware that people learn differently, whether or not the education system as it exists can accomodate different types of learners. Your very first paragraph is a perfect demonstration of my point; you can take two tribes of monkeys from seperate corners of Africa, and stick them together in a room, but they probably won't do much more than sling feces at eachother.

I contend that human individuality is the very thing that has brought our advancement this far. You say "unique method of acquiring knowledge..." as if I am suggesting that some people learn through commune with spirits. Human perception is unique to every individual; all the reality any one perceives, at any given time, is a complex composition of physical stimuli, conceptual understanding, moral/emotional evaluation, and finally a metaphysical contextual framework that both subsumes and is built upon the rest. Understanding and subsequent learning of any piece of knowledge depends upon so many inter-reflexive factors that to suggest that humans all learn the same is absurd.

Besides, philosophy aside, there is no way you can discount all of the evidence amassed over the passed few decades, that stands directly opposed to your assertion. Consider the most basic of all human distinctions, sex; the neural structural differences between males and females are so profound that you would have to be insane to conclude that they learn in the same manner.

As for absolute truth, I have pondered it plenty. I think it might be you who ought to contemplate the matter, given your assertion. Absolute truths are always objective; in that they are statements held to be absolutely true for as long as one does not stray from the restrictions of the conceptual framework within which the so-called truth is asserted. Once you claim the truth to be absolute, even removed from its native binding conceptual scaffolding, your assertion becomes fair game.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I concur with section 8 here. If we all learned the same way, you would have to assume that we all would get the same grades if we all studied the same amount of time and in the same manner, which just isn't true. Even if you remove the people with learning disabilities like dyslexia, who do not exist according to your theory, you would still not find this.

Regardless of all of this, I believe this a great topic for debate since it hits upon so many things.

 

[camarosuper6]

Well, I did not mean to open a can of worms like this. My original post was really more meant just to help people out who were stuck or hitting a plateau and needed something that might help them bust through, or give them a little variety while telling everyone that I have found something that truely works

One of the things I find amusing is how HIT is regarded as a lazy mans workout, by F.L.E.X. I dont really understand where he gets this from, but when Im done with a 40 min HIT style workout, Im sick from exhaustion and usually need to lay down a few hours after. Just because I dont workout for 2 hours, 5 times a week doesnt make me lazy by any means. Am I more effecient? I think so. I am, like most of us on here a very busy person, working, schooling and the like. Workouts for me, while enjoyable, are not intended to take up a large portion of my free time. They serve one of two BASIC purposes: adding muscle or burning fat, depending if I'm doing Cardio, or Training.

If you say you work out with maximal intensity with high volume training, I really am not going to believe it. Maximal Intensity can only be maintained a minimal amount of time. That is why I try to keep my workouts around 30 to 40 minutes, and my sets down as much as possible. I have never seen any scientific studies or research data of any kind to suggest high volume has a positive correlation to muscle mass or growth. On the contrary, I HAVE seen studies, read data and viewed clinical research to suggest Intensity is one of the key elements, if not THE key element to stimulating maximum muscle growth.

Now before anyone decides to jump on me, I realize that not everyone agrees with this approach. Im NOT saying that volume doesnt work for you. If it works for you, then by all means stick with it. If your workout program brings you the best results then dont change anything. There are a million different exercise programs and diets, and with all those millions, each person has a wide variety to choose from and one is bound to make good progress for you.

Personally, IMHO, I believe muscle is muscle, and there isnt much difference between them from one person to the next. The laws of physiology apply to all muscles equally, and I dont really understand fully why some approaches "work better" for some people and other approaches work better for others. I believe there ARE many ways to gain muscle, but I also believe that there are certain basic priniciples of muscle stimulation and hypertrophy that certain people ignore blantently, and still insist there way is superior, even if it does break some of the basic principles.

But then again, we learn something new every day in our search for the perfect workout. I have found what works for me. I hope you all find what works for you

Dave

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by camarosuper6
Personally, IMHO, I believe muscle is muscle, and there isnt much difference between them from one person to the next. The laws of physiology apply to all muscles equally, and I dont really understand fully why some approaches "work better" for some people and other approaches work better for others. I believe there ARE many ways to gain muscle, but I also believe that there are certain basic priniciples of muscle stimulation and hypertrophy that certain people ignore blantently, and still insist there way is superior, even if it does break some of the basic principles.

The only Law of Physiology is what goes in must go out...in one form or another.

And that's really the problem with "idealized" training theory. There are simply far too many factors that contribute to the recovery and growth process to have a singular ideal theory as, ultimately, the positive response anyone will have to any workout will be limited by their lifestyle. Not everyone can eat every two hours, sleep for nine hours, some people are more active during the day than others, etc., etc.

As I said, I had perfectly fine gains on a HIT w/o, but could not continue to progress, because it did not fit in with my lifestyle. HIT seems like less time when looking just at the workout, but once I realized that I was non-functional for two hours afterwards...well, I just don't have a three hour block of time to dedicate as 'lifting time.'

But then again, we learn something new every day in our search for the perfect workout. I have found what works for me. I hope you all find what works for you

And that's the moral of the story

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by camarosuper6
I have never seen any scientific studies or research data of any kind to suggest high volume has a positive correlation to muscle mass or growth. On the contrary, I HAVE seen studies, read data and viewed clinical research to suggest Intensity is one of the key elements, if not THE key element to stimulating maximum muscle growth.

Intensity, meaning % of 1RPM. That is true, for if it were otherwise, we could all pump our way to 18 inch biceps with pink five pound Barbie dumbbells.

But no one is arguing that, and "high volume" itself doesn't define any system of training---geared toward hypertrophy--accurately.

 

[nas]

I disagree entirely with the whole 95% of people overtrain statement. Most successful body builders will entirely disagree with this. IMO, 95% of people that workout don't even come close to overtraining. In order to grow, your body must be challenged. The human body is amazing in that, if you try to do more than you can you'll fail, but it will grow and adapt so you can acheive it.

In the end, I think training 6 or even 7 days / week is fine. Hit two muscle groups per day, twice a week, or three per day, three times per week for more advanced.

However, the vast majority of people in the gym, not body builders, are also grossly under-nurished. You need to be taking in at least a protein shake in the morning, another at night, getting a solid 8-9 hours of sleep EVERY night, and consuming around 20 calories per lb. Yes, for me that means around 4000 calories and about 200g protein per day. Many pro body builders will additionally take an hour nap right after their workout.

In the end, it is very easy to overtrain when you don't give your body the fuel it needs. Try walking through a desert with no food, water, in the hot sun, without taking a break. How far will you make it? Not nearly as far as if you have ample water, food, and stop for breaks/naps every so often. Yes, this is an extreme example, but it applies directly to body building. If you continue on with your regular diet then yes maybe once / week is fine. If you want to get big, fast, and have the dedication to do it, well rather simply you'd be in the gym a lot more than once / week.