|
|
 |
 after 4 weeks of dieting down... |  |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Member No.: 308
Joined: 8-September 02
| |  |
 |
 |
| QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 09:18 PM) | BTW, you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines.
EDIT: Not saying that machines are the only thing that you can use using a HIT methodology |
What? "...you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines."? The priniples of HIT had nothing to do specifically with a type of machine or specifically with freeweights. And the basis of the science behind it had nothing to do with machines, period. Niether Aurthor Jones, nor Mike Mentzer would argue that!!! It had to do with growth stimulation and recovery, not the means at which you accomplished those goals (ie. the use of machines or freeweights). Arthor Jones created Nautilus and SOME of the principles of HIT, but he did not develop them specifically for the Nautilus machines, as he did not develop Nautilus machines on the basis of HIT workouts. Also, if you consider my responses too "all robot scientific like", then you are welcome to avoid commenting and ignore my posts, as I will yours. If you want to argue the origin of HIT, you bore me. If you want to talk science and rational, I welcome you. "Yes, I am a powerlifter but strength is strength. Muscle is muscle, this is especially pointed out by the "scientific" definition of HIT there is no difference." There very much is a difference, and any exercise science text book will tell you that, including that written by Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. In fact, there is no clear cut definition of strength, but all books on the physiology of skeletal muscle define power and strength as two seperate abilities.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Member No.: 308
Joined: 8-September 02
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (MoVin_Weight @ Apr 4 2008, 09:00 PM) | well theres nothin for me to disagree with here, i mean taking 1 set to failure is pretty typical, sometimes i do more... but i agree thats all you really need
But what you didn't cover is how many excercises per muscle group, warm-up sets, rest-times ect...
We were all arguing the amount of time a person spends in the gym for the most part
do you skip warm-up sets and jump straight into 80% of your 1RM? I need 2-3 warm-up sets b4 i reach that weight or my joints fall off
Do you stick to core lifts such as bench, squat, shoulder press, rows? Cuz i also like to do isolation lifts to bring up lagging bodyparts, which add more time |
Great post, and I'm very willing to reply... Well, for instance...my chest workout starts with an isolation exercise of pec dec, followed immediately with incline bench press. I warm up on the compound exercise when doing supersets; in this way you warm up the muscles for both the isolation and the compound movement, and it also gives you the opportunity to set the weight for the compound movement. My warm up typically includes a very light set to get the blood flowing, a heavier set to set up neuromuscularly, and a last set using the weight I will be using for the working set to get ready psychologically. Then, one set of pec dec to failure, followed right away with incline bench. That is it for chest. I understand your concern with using isolation for lagging body parts. To me, that is like concentrating on calculus when I don't understand addition. I don't mean that as an insult. As an example to explain what I mean; Mike Mentzer pointed it out to one of his clients that was concerned with the size and shape of his brachialis. Mike said "Why don't you worry about getting 20inch arms before you worry about bringing up such a minor detail". If you are at the size you want, I understand your wanting to bring up a body part. I don't have that concern at this time, as I'm not as big as I would like to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guru
Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3904
Member No.: 2459
Joined: 7-March 03
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Younggunz @ Apr 4 2008, 09:01 PM) | | QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 09:18 PM) | BTW, you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines.
EDIT: Not saying that machines are the only thing that you can use using a HIT methodology |
What? "...you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines."? The priniples of HIT had nothing to do specifically with a type of machine or specifically with freeweights. And the basis of the science behind it had nothing to do with machines, period. Niether Aurthor Jones, nor Mike Mentzer would argue that!!! It had to do with growth stimulation and recovery, not the means at which you accomplished those goals (ie. the use of machines or freeweights). Arthor Jones created Nautilus and SOME of the principles of HIT, but he did not develop them specifically for the Nautilus machines, as he did not develop Nautilus machines on the basis of HIT workouts. Also, if you consider my responses too "all robot scientific like", then you are welcome to avoid commenting and ignore my posts, as I will yours. If you want to argue the origin of HIT, you bore me. If you want to talk science and rational, I welcome you. "Yes, I am a powerlifter but strength is strength. Muscle is muscle, this is especially pointed out by the "scientific" definition of HIT there is no difference." There very much is a difference, and any exercise science text book will tell you that, including that written by Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. In fact, there is no clear cut definition of strength, but all books on the physiology of skeletal muscle define power and strength as two seperate abilities. |
HAHA... you're still getting way to worked up over this. You seem to be very much a "follower" of Heavy Duty. I'm fine with that.
You have to read what I said. I'll lay it out again. Author Jones developed HIT. Author Jones created Nautilus. HIT was originally programmed around using machines. Plain and simple. Both Jones and Mentzer talked about the superiority of Machines over free weights. Mentzer even said so in his DVD.
That is all I said and have said now. I never said muscle equalled strength and never mentioned power period. I know first hand that larger muscle does not equal strength or power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Member No.: 308
Joined: 8-September 02
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 10:21 PM) | | QUOTE (Younggunz @ Apr 4 2008, 09:01 PM) | | QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 09:18 PM) | BTW, you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines.
EDIT: Not saying that machines are the only thing that you can use using a HIT methodology |
What? "...you can not deny that HIT was not fully developed to work using machines."? The priniples of HIT had nothing to do specifically with a type of machine or specifically with freeweights. And the basis of the science behind it had nothing to do with machines, period. Niether Aurthor Jones, nor Mike Mentzer would argue that!!! It had to do with growth stimulation and recovery, not the means at which you accomplished those goals (ie. the use of machines or freeweights). Arthor Jones created Nautilus and SOME of the principles of HIT, but he did not develop them specifically for the Nautilus machines, as he did not develop Nautilus machines on the basis of HIT workouts. Also, if you consider my responses too "all robot scientific like", then you are welcome to avoid commenting and ignore my posts, as I will yours. If you want to argue the origin of HIT, you bore me. If you want to talk science and rational, I welcome you. "Yes, I am a powerlifter but strength is strength. Muscle is muscle, this is especially pointed out by the "scientific" definition of HIT there is no difference." There very much is a difference, and any exercise science text book will tell you that, including that written by Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. In fact, there is no clear cut definition of strength, but all books on the physiology of skeletal muscle define power and strength as two seperate abilities. |
HAHA... you're still getting way to worked up over this. You seem to be very much a "follower" of Heavy Duty. I'm fine with that.
You have to read what I said. I'll lay it out again. Author Jones developed HIT. Author Jones created Nautilus. HIT was originally programmed around using machines. Plain and simple. Both Jones and Mentzer talked about the superiority of Machines over free weights. Mentzer even said so in his DVD.
That is all I said and have said now. I never said muscle equalled strength and never mentioned power period. I know first hand that larger muscle does not equal strength or power.
|
I think you would say I'm getting too worked up over this topic no matter how I replied. I answered to your comments. That's all. I have no emotional involvement in it whatsoever. However your argument does bore me, because it has little, if anything, to do with the topic at hand.
Arthur Jones also used free weights during his research, including with his works on the science of HIT. Arthur Jones created nautilus to accomplish resistance through a full range of motion. His theory of HIT was not related to Nautilus, although he did advocate it's usage on particular exercises, as did Mike. If you listened to Mike, you would note that he only said that machines were better at particular muscle groups, but did not replace certain exercises, including the deadlift and squat. Anyway, I was explaining the principles behind HIT, not it's origin...but thanks for the history lesson. I don't care to argue about it anymore as it truly does not apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guru
Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3904
Member No.: 2459
Joined: 7-March 03
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Younggunz @ Apr 4 2008, 09:47 PM) | I think you would say I'm getting too worked up over this topic no matter how I replied. I answered to your comments. That's all. I have no emotional involvement in it whatsoever. However your argument does bore me, because it has little, if anything, to do with the topic at hand.
Arthur Jones also used free weights during his research, including with his works on the science of HIT. Arthur Jones created nautilus to accomplish resistance through a full range of motion. His theory of HIT was not related to Nautilus, although he did advocate it's usage on particular exercises, as did Mike. If you listened to Mike, you would note that he only said that machines were better at particular muscle groups, but did not replace certain exercises, including the deadlift and squat. Anyway, I was explaining the principles behind HIT, not it's origin...but thanks for the history lesson. I don't care to argue about it anymore as it truly does not apply. |
You may be bored with this because there is no arguement other then the one that you are making up and putting words into my mouth. Very defensive. I never once said they didn't use free weights or say that free weights couldn't be used. In fact in the DVD itself he has Markus Reinhardt do the deadlift as the last lift done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guru
Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3904
Member No.: 2459
Joined: 7-March 03
| | |
|
|
BTW, I'd suggest anyone that wants to know more about this check out http://www.mikementzer.com/There are the links to his books there and a bunch of articles. Don't know why younggunz hasn't provided any resources yet. Here's the DVD http://www.hardcorebodybuildingontheweb.com/videos/mike_order.htm I've ready Heavy duty and watched the DVD. Interesting stuff and worth looking at if you want to try something different. Do have to warn people though there does seem to be a cult following for this stuff. There have been a lot of different variations on HIT as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Movin Weights by the pound
Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1538
Member No.: 102835
Joined: 13-February 06
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Younggunz @ Apr 4 2008, 10:19 PM) | | QUOTE (MoVin_Weight @ Apr 4 2008, 09:00 PM) | well theres nothin for me to disagree with here, i mean taking 1 set to failure is pretty typical, sometimes i do more... but i agree thats all you really need
But what you didn't cover is how many excercises per muscle group, warm-up sets, rest-times ect...
We were all arguing the amount of time a person spends in the gym for the most part
do you skip warm-up sets and jump straight into 80% of your 1RM? I need 2-3 warm-up sets b4 i reach that weight or my joints fall off
Do you stick to core lifts such as bench, squat, shoulder press, rows? Cuz i also like to do isolation lifts to bring up lagging bodyparts, which add more time |
Great post, and I'm very willing to reply... Well, for instance...my chest workout starts with an isolation exercise of pec dec, followed immediately with incline bench press. I warm up on the compound exercise when doing supersets; in this way you warm up the muscles for both the isolation and the compound movement, and it also gives you the opportunity to set the weight for the compound movement. My warm up typically includes a very light set to get the blood flowing, a heavier set to set up neuromuscularly, and a last set using the weight I will be using for the working set to get ready psychologically. Then, one set of pec dec to failure, followed right away with incline bench. That is it for chest. I understand your concern with using isolation for lagging body parts. To me, that is like concentrating on calculus when I don't understand addition. I don't mean that as an insult. As an example to explain what I mean; Mike Mentzer pointed it out to one of his clients that was concerned with the size and shape of his brachialis. Mike said "Why don't you worry about getting 20inch arms before you worry about bringing up such a minor detail". If you are at the size you want, I understand your wanting to bring up a body part. I don't have that concern at this time, as I'm not as big as I would like to be. |
ok thats reasonable by all means... now my next question Do you stick to one muscle group per session? You stated earlier that you hit the gym for 15-20min ever 3-4 days... So are you doing a full-body routine every 3-4 days, or are you simply hitting 1 muscle group such as chest every 3-4 days If your doing full-body then i still find it difficult to fit everything into a 15-20 min session... but i'm sure it is possible, and that would be more than adequate IMO However if your only hitting 1 bodypart every 3-4 days, then your spending way too much time off btw sessions... but i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not doing this b/c it's completely inefficient
Current as of 03/08
Weight: 219lbs
Height: 6'1''
Bi's: 18''
Quads: 26''
Calves: 15.5''
Waist: 35''
PR's:
Bench: 335x1
Deads: 405x3
Milit. DB Press: 100's x6
Squat: 315x5
Incline: 275x2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 35
Member No.: 308
Joined: 8-September 02
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 PM) | ...
Edit: eh, screw it. It'll only piss off younggunz. |
You really are funny. First you say I'm too "robot science like", the next I'm too "too worked up". You are pathetic in your weak argument.
All you are stating is "...HIT was originally programmed around using machines". That is what I was replying to, and that statement you made is completely false. As I stated over and over, SOME of the principles leading to Heavy Duty were developed by Arthur Jones, and Mentzer completed the then incomplete theory. HIT was not first developed around the use of just machines as you just stated, though they were proven more effective for specific exercises. Aurthor Jones himself used freeweights as well machines in his studies and theory development of HIT. That was the only point I was making, but I have now had to say it over and over again. Also, you may take note that Arthur Jones never really developed ANY PROGRAM, period. He did, however, discover and state some of the principles behind the theory of HIT. You define the reason I don't bother with bodybuilding message boards much anymore.
Perhaps it's you who are emotionally responding, rather then having any type of rational thought to contribute. I would suggest you kindly leave and let the rest of us continue a great discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guru
Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3904
Member No.: 2459
Joined: 7-March 03
| | |
|
|
| QUOTE (Younggunz @ Apr 5 2008, 05:41 AM) | | QUOTE (Jason2459 @ Apr 4 2008, 11:15 PM) | ...
Edit: eh, screw it. It'll only piss off younggunz. |
You really are funny. First you say I'm too "robot science like", the next I'm too "too worked up". You are pathetic in your weak argument.
All you are stating is "...HIT was originally programmed around using machines". That is what I was replying to, and that statement you made is completely false. As I stated over and over, SOME of the principles leading to Heavy Duty were developed by Arthur Jones, and Mentzer completed the then incomplete theory. HIT was not first developed around the use of just machines as you just stated, though they were proven more effective for specific exercises. Aurthor Jones himself used freeweights as well machines in his studies and theory development of HIT. That was the only point I was making, but I have now had to say it over and over again. Also, you may take note that Arthur Jones never really developed ANY PROGRAM, period. He did, however, discover and state some of the principles behind the theory of HIT. You define the reason I don't bother with bodybuilding message boards much anymore.
Perhaps it's you who are emotionally responding, rather then having any type of rational thought to contribute. I would suggest you kindly leave and let the rest of us continue a great discussion.
|
 I have nothing emotionally involved in this at all. I've used various HIT methods before and have never said anything against someone trying it out. In fact I'm the one that has provided ways for someone to find out more about HIT and see if they like it not you. I already stated the facts as they are and you are confirming them. I'm not arguing anything. You're just being too defensive probably because I'm not a HIT nut swinger. I totally respect Mentzer and think he had a lot of great philosophies. Which is why I would recommend people reading and watching his works even if they wont go by the principles. There are things to take away from it but it is not perfect and doesn't apply to everyone. Nothing does. Have fun with that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
