mettetemela in italiano
con esercizi fattibili in una palestra casalinga
con esercizi fattibili in una palestra casalinga
-
-
maronna che sito....è completissmo!
ti amo erikzCommenta
-
l'ultima full che ho fatto,per le altre dovrei guardare il diario di allenamento.Originally posted by Akkawe
Puoi postare la tua scheda?
Grazie
A
panca
trazioni
squat
calf
crunch
B
lento
stacchi GT
rematore
scrollate
curlCommenta
-
Che tecnica di allenamento segui?Originally posted by MISTER X
l'ultima full che ho fatto,per le altre dovrei guardare il diario di allenamento.
A
panca
trazioni
squat
calf
crunch
B
lento
stacchi GT
rematore
scrollate
curl
Arrivi sempre a cedimento?Commenta
-
HIT.Originally posted by Akkawe
Che tecnica di allenamento segui?
Arrivi sempre a cedimento?
a cedimento sempre nel periodo delle full,tranne che negli squat e negli stacchi.Commenta
-
Quali sono le principali caratteritiche del HIT, non è uguale al BII vero?Originally posted by MISTER X
HIT.
a cedimento sempre nel periodo delle full,tranne che negli squat e negli stacchi.
Ma l'Hit è quello che praticamente non recuperi tra una serie e l'altra?
CiaoCommenta
-
non è semplice dire in due parole cosa è l'HIT.Originally posted by Akkawe
Quali sono le principali caratteritiche del HIT, non è uguale al BII vero?
Ma l'Hit è quello che praticamente non recuperi tra una serie e l'altra?
Ciao
ci sono molte correnti di pensiero.
il mio + grande consiglio è venire sul forum di Armando,il link è nella mia signature,e chiedi a lui per bene.
è il nostro HIT guru.
poi se trovo un suo vecchio articolo molto bello te lo posto.Commenta
-
Qui di seguito c'è qualche info GENERALE sull'HIT, che scrissi sul mio vecchio forum (EZBoard).
Non è l'ultima parola sull'HIT....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questo è un post dedicato all'HIT in generale, forse la sua forma più pura.
Definire cos' è esattamente l'HIT (High Intensity Training) non è un impresa facile.
Tale metodica ha diversi sostenitori, ognuno dei quali la modifica a proprio pacimento.
Più che un sistema di allenamento definirei l'HIT una filosofia.
Lo stare a sindacare su quante serie, quante ripetizioni, o semplicemente dire che si tratta di allenamenti molto brevi e brutalmente duri è un modo per minimizzare l'HIT stesso.
Negli USA, il nostro concetto di BII è racchiuso nell'HIT.
Il problema di fondo è riuscire a trovare delle linee guida generali, per chi fosse interessato, sul sito www.cyberpump.com, sezione FAQ 4.0, ci sono tali informazioni.
(vedi sotto)
L'High Intensity Training nacque per contrastare il sistema Weider, classico e di volume.
Ideatore dell'HIT fu Arthur Jones, ma a mio parere fece solo un passo nella direzione opposta a quella di Joe Weider, sia per un discorso prettamente economico (il Body Building stava venendo alla ribalta in quel periodo, qundi vi lascio immaginare il buisness che poteva nascere) sia per sfida personale nei confronti di Mr. Weider.
L'HIT di Jones, era molto più sperimentale ed esperenziale dei metodi classici, e attraverso prove ed errori (ricordo a tutti il famosissimo Colorado Experiment, che permise a Casey Viator di diventare il più giovane Mr.America), nacque un sistema base, ma molto lontano da quello che è realmente l'HIT oggi.
Diciamo che il vero nome dell'HIT fu "Sistema Nautilus" (dal nome di un pesce per chi fosse curioso) e consisteva essenzialmente in 10 esercizi circa raggruppati in un unica full-body, svolti 3 volte a settimana, per 2 serie circa.
Ecco una tabella da svolgere 3 volte a settimana:
1. 2 sets of 10 repetitions full squats :06 (minutes)
2. 3 sets of 20 “ one-legged calf raises :06
3. 2 sets of 10 “ barbell standing presses :06
4. 2 sets of 10 “ behind-neck chins :06
5. 2 sets of 10 “ bench presses :06
6. 2 sets of 10 “ regular-grip chins :06
7. 2 sets of 10 “ parallel dips :06
8. 2 sets of 10 “ barbell curls :08
9. 2 sets of 12 “ pulley triceps-curls :06
10. 2 sets of 15 “ wrist curls :02
11. 1 set of 10 “ regular-grip chins :03
12. 1 set of 10 “ parallel dips :03
13. 2 sets of 15 “ stiff-legged deadlifts :06
14. 2 sets of 10 “ dumbbell side raises :06
Oppure per individui (dice Jones) sottopeso:
1. 1 set of 15 repetitions stiff-legged deadlifts :04
2. 2 sets of 10 “ full squats :08
3. 2 sets of 10 “ barbell standing presses :08
.4. 2 sets of 10 “ regular-grip chins :08
5. 2 sets of 15 “ parallel dips :06
6. 2 sets of 10 “ barbell curls :08
7. 2 sets of 15 “ wrist curls :04
8. 1 set of 15 “ stiff-legged deadlifts :04
(da Nutilus Bullettin number 1)
Il metodo variò per anni se non mesi, in base ai diversi esperimenti, ma la costante rimaneva l'intensità pura!
(Da questo punto in poi, il buon Jones, che aveva un gran fiuto negli affari, iniziò la costruzione delle macchiene a camma Nautilus, attualmente ancora in commercio...)
In seguito, quando il metodo fu lanciato ufficialmente nel mondo del BB, fu ampiamente criticato, ma trovò molti sostenitori.
Tra cui cito Ellington Darden e Mike Mentzer.
Il primo prese alcuni dettami del metodo Nautilus e li modificò creando un sistema di allenamento efficace, ma sotto un certo aspetto voluminoso (anche 10 serie, ma sempre meno del classico 20 serie per gruppo muscolare...famoso è il suo libro BIG!).
Il secondo, il grande Iron Mike, ormai scomparso, sviluppò dalle idee (quindi senza basarsi troppo sulla pratica) in accordanza con dei principi filosofici (l'oggettivismo di Ayn Rand...) una metodica chiamata Heavy Duty.
Tale sistema variò con gli anni, e penso che sia tutt'ora, anche dopo le fatiche di Mentzer ancora da perfezionare, ma la strada è spianata.
Dei numerosi guru, uno dei più accreditati, che oltretutto collaborò con Jones, è il Dr. Ken E. Leistner.
Il quale come il buon Mentzer elaborò, modificò e applicò le teorie del metodo Nautilus, più altri sistemi di allenamento (ricordo per curiosità dei lettori i metodi di Lou Simmons).
Nasce ufficialmente l'HIT, ovvero il "metodo" finalmente prende il nome che gli è sempre stato negato.
Ricordo altri grandi dell'HIT come Kim Wood, Matt Brizky, Robert Spector.
Da questo punto in poi numerosi allenatori, soprattutto squadre universitarie (primeggiano quelle di football) iniziano ad adottare l'HIT.
NFL:
Pittsburgh Steelers
Minnesota Vikings
Cincinnati Bengals
Philadelphia Eagles
Arizona Cardinals
Washington Redskins
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
New York Giants
Carolina Panthers
(The Redskins since 1981 and the Bengals since the early 70s).
Hockey, Stanley Cup Winners The Pittsburgh Penguins.
Baseball, the Detroit Tigers and San Diego Padres
Basketball, the Boston Celtics
1996 U.S. Olympic Women's Basketball Team (gold medal)
At the collegiate level, HIT programs are used at
The University of Kentucky (except football)
Southeast Missouri State University
University of Detroit - Mercy
Michigan
Penn State
Villanova
Stanford
Michigan State
The University of Toledo
The U.S. Military Academy
Providence College
Western Kentucky
The University of Cincinnati
Drexel University (PA)
University of Miami (FL) -- basketball (M/W), baseball, track and
field (M/W)
Numerosi guru nascono, molte variazioni vengono appllicate al metodo originale, comincia un vero e proprio buisness dell'HIT/BII.
Nasce il superslow, ma questa è un altra storia.
Per chi fosse interessato agli scritti di Jones, può visitare il sito www.cyberpump.com dove c'è un apposita sezione dedicata ad Arthur Jones e ai famosi bollettini Nautilus.
Per l'Heavy Duty ricordo il sito www.mikementzer.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Train with a high level of intensity (Allenati con un alto livello di intensità)
Intensità, intesa come livello di sforzo percepito e non % o altro o calcoli matematici.
Ciò determina sessioni brevi e infrequenti (vedi altri "comandamenti").
Parlare dell'intensità è cosa difficile, per me potrebbe essere rappresntata da un certo grado di sforzo, da un altro da un altro grado.
Non possono essere fatti paragoni...però per parafrasare McRobert "è possibile allenarsi ancora più duramente..."
2. Follow the "double progression" technique in regards to repetitions and weight (usa la doppia progressione di peso e ripetizioni)
Questo a mio parere è un comandamento stupido, qualsiasi forma di progressione va bene, anche di set.
L'importante è che sia graduale.
3. Perform 1 to 3 sets of each exercise (esecui da 1 a 3 set per esercizio)
Questa è la base dell'HIT e si collega all'intensità.
Se si lavora veramente in modo duro, 1 set è sufficiente, 3 set sono il masismo accettabile.
L'unica eccezione è data da periodi particolari dove si possono provare singole per 6-10 set, ma NON E' HIT!
Vi scrivo una frase edel doc Ken:
I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it's just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, If you could get to the point where you're squatting 400 lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don't you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong? Obviously!"
4. Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions (ricerca il cedimento per il numero di ripetizioni prescritto)
Penso non si debba aggiungere nulla.
Un mio pensiero.
Le rip contano poco, visto che lo sfrorzo è alle base di tutto, quindi se le rip prefissate sono 10 ma noi possiamo farne 11 o +, facciamole, poi aggiusteremo il peso nella seduta seguente o semplicemente lasciamo le cose come stanno e progrediamo come al solito.
Giorni in cui diamo di più possono capitare...
5. Work to concentric (positive) muscular failure in each set (Ricerca il cedimento concentrico ad ogni set)
6. Perform each repetition with proper form (esegui ogni ripetizione con forma perfetta)
Non correte tra le rip, considerate ogni set come un' insieme di singole e date ad ogni ripetizione la stessa importanza e concentrazione.
7. Use a full range of motion (usa il massimo range di movimento)
Qui aggiungerei IN SICUREZZA...non tutti possono fare squat completi o front squat p.e.
8. Train for no more than one hour per workout (non allenarti per più di 1 ora a workout).
Vere sedute HIT, avanzate durano tra i 20 e i 30 minuti.
Qualcuna anche 15 minuti.
9. Move quickly between sets (muoviti rapidamente tra i set...intesi set tra esercizi).
Pause brevi tra gli esercizi, per mantenere alta l'intensità percepità.
Molti chiamano tale metodo "densità di allemaneto" per me potrebbe chiamarsi anche CORRI COME UN PAZZO, il concetto è quello....
10. Exercise the major muscle groups first (allena prima i grandi gruppi muscolari)
Questo è individuale, allenate i gruppi carenti prima, gli esercizi che vengono influenzati negativamente da altri (per esempio lento/squat o stacchi e non squat o stacchi e lento) o qualsiasi altra combinazione ritenete mgiliore PER VOI!
11. Do not split your routine - do not work your body on successive days (non splittate la vostra rouuine - non allenatevi in giorni consecutivi)
L'HIT PURO si basa sulle full body, ma questo alla fine è di poco conto, l'importante è sempre la qualità dell'allenamento.
Un solo esericizio fatto bene può competere con 3 esercizi fatti male!
Quindi direi organizzate l'allenamento in modo tale che rispecchi le vostre esigenze.
Per i giorni successivi, dipende da cosa si sta facendo...ricordiamoci che sono regole generali.
12. Get ample rest after each training session (prendete ampio riposo tra le session di allenmento)
Ovvero recuperate pienamente.
Come annotazione vi dico che il recupero può essere migliorato del 50%, quindi provate anche frequenza diverse.
13. Take periodic layoffs (prendetevi periodi di riposo)
Dopo 3 o 6 mesi di allenamento 1 settiman di riposo.
Ma è in generale, chi fa scarico si comporterà diversamente o chi fa ripos attivo ecc...
14. As you get stronger decrease the frequency of workouts and/or amount of sets
(Non appena diventi più forte diminuisci la frequenza dei workout e il numero di set)
Qui sotto c'è la tabella con le frequenze.
Beginning level: 3 times/week
Intermediate: 2 times/5-7 days
Advanced: 1 time/5-7 days
Non aggiungo altro.
15. Use high intensity techniques sparingly (usa le tecniche ad alta intensità raramente)
Super set, stripping ecc....
Credo che dovrebbe essere formulato tutto in un altro modo:
Usa le tecninche ad alta intensità, ma stai attento a non superallenarti.
Cura meglio il recupero.
16. Perform a Proper Warmup and Cool down (esegui un buon riscaldamento e defatigamento)
....aggiungerei, tale da non incidere sui set di lavoro.
Fare troppi set, toglie forze per la prestazione che ci interessa di più, il set di lavoro.
Riscaldarsi sullle trazioni, riscalda anche i bicipiti e il rematore, quindi evitiamo di fare riscaldmaneto inutile e in più.
Per alcuni HIT man il riscaldamento va effettuato solo su esercizi tecnicamente impegnativi.
Per altri bastano 1-2 set.
Per altri solo 1-2 set sugli esercizi principali.
Per riscaldarsi si può fare in due modi.
1) esercizi principali, prima dell'inizio della tabella, che poi andrà eseguta senza sosta.
2) Riscaldamento classico.
In un primo tempo preferivo il tipo 1, poi mi son accorto che mi "divertivo" di più con il tipo 2.
17. Keep Accurate Training Records (in parole povere.....TENETE UN DIARIO)
18. Get a good Training Partner (Prendet un training partner)
Non è necessario, ma è molto motivante e aumenta la sicurezza del workout (sia materialmente, con aiuti, sia con segnalazione di errori)
19. Do not try to "mimic" a sports skill in the weightroom (non mimare i movimenti degli sport in sala pesi)
Ovvero se giocate a baseball non usate un bilanciere appesantito come mazza.
Strength training should be GENERAL and requires HEAVY RESISTANCE
L'allenamento per la forza dovrebbe essere generale e richiede RESISTENZE ELEVATE
Skill training should be SPECIFIC and requires NO ADDED RESISTANCE.
L'allenamento per lo sport dovrebbe essere specifico e non richiedere resistenza aggiunta
20. Avoid Orthopaedically Unsound Movements (Non eseguire movimenti ortopedicalmente scorretti)
Lento dietro e family...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qui di seguito riporto un articolo in inglese HIT vs PERIODIZATION.
INTRODUCTION
You, know, I really didn't think I'd be writing anything else to post here but I guess I was wrong. I made the mistake of logging back on to m.f.w to look for some of Dan Duchaine's musings and came across the old HIT vs. Periodization argument still going in as full force and as much silliness as ever. While I thought I could ignore the urge, it kept burning at my stomach telling me to write something and here it is. For those of you who don't know me, I used to post prolifically to the old m.f about a year ago. My old stuff can be seen on Kyle Wilson's WWW page The Weights Page (some of it was written a long time ago and is outdated so don't harsh me too badly on it). If you do remember me (from the now famous "Plyometric wars"), good, you already know what to expect.
The argument of HIT vs. periodization has been going on for years. Both groups hold with an overly tenacious grasp to their respective dogma's (personally, I have a catma but that's just me) and have resorted to the best method of argument: volume. That is, all logic, intelligence and open-mindedness went out the window years ago and now neither groups is willing to listen to even give a cursory nod to the other's theories. They just like to yell at each other a lot.
Well, at risk of angering both sides, let me offer my opinion on the whole topic: Maybe you're both wrong. Or both right depending on how you want to look at it.
As those of you familiar with me know, I have most often allied myself with the periodization camp. And, I guess I still do to a degree. But, there is more afoot to both camps than meets the eye and I think most systems have something good to offer to the world of strength training and body-building. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
First, let's take a little look at the three primary combatants in this war.
HIT PHILOSOPHY
In this corner, the HIT philosophy. Many have essentially equated HIT with Nautilus 1 set of 8-12 but that's really not correct. There are several distinct approaches to the HIT philosophy of training. There's standard Nautilus/Arthur Jones HIT, Mentzerian HIT (or Heavy Duty), Super Slow (ok, it's not strictly speaking HIT but for the sake of this argument), and Ken Leistner HIT all of which, while relying on the same essential principles, are different. Some espouse negatives or drop sets (Westcott), others (Dr. Ken for example) will do a second set if necessary. Still others like to pre-exhaust (Mentzer). Rep ranges differ as well. Standard Nautilus is generally 8-12, Superslow is 1 set but it lasts 60 seconds, and Dr. Ken ranges from as low as 3 on some movements to as high as 50 or more in squats. Still, the most basic tenet of HIT is that all working sets should be taken to at least positive failure. While I'm still not convinced that going to failure is absolutely necessary for adaptation (I'd explain here but I'm working on that separately and it's up to 31 pages with no sign of slowing down) I'll be the first to agree that going to failure will definitely cause adaptation. For more information, see PERIODIZATION PHILOSOPHY
In the second corner, periodization philosophy. Periodization came out of Eastern European training theory and is at least one of the supposed "Russian Secrets" to their sports excellence (that and lots of drugs). It is essentially about change at it's very barest principle. But, again, there are numerous different approaches to it. Whether it's the strict percentages and reps used by Olympic and most powerlifters or the more freestyle approach used by say Clarence Bass (he essentially has combined periodization with one set to failure ideas) to the routines espoused by most NSCA strength coaches. Hell, even the Ironman and Hardgainer idea of intensity cycling (alternating periods of maximal work with periods of lighter work) is a type of periodization although not in the strictest sense. I think periodization has some ver definite strengths for specific applications. But, it (like every other system) has some serious downfalls as well but I'll discuss these later.
HARDGAINER PHILOSOPHY
And, in the final corner, there's good old Hardgainer philosophy. Interestingly, most believers in HG don't bother themselves trying to discredit the other philosophies. They know that their system works for them and they just keep on with it. Again, HG philosophy spans a major continuum ranging >from programs of heavy singles (some may do 9 total reps per workout) to Dr. Ken's 50 reps squats. However, the essential idea is that you should train infrequently with certain basic and best exercises (squats, deadlifts, benches, rows) and cycle your intensity to make continuous progress. Personally, I find little to fault with the HG philosophy but include it here as these seem to be the 3 primary ideas in strength training (discounting the 20 sets per bodypart bullshit the pros use but which are completely inapplicable to the average (read: non-drug assisted) trainee). For more information, see PROS AND CONS
Alright, let's talk about some pros and cons (in my humble opinion of course) about these three.
HIT: Pros: HIT is very time efficient. There's no doubt that getting in and out of the weight room in 20-30 minutes is a good thing for certain applications. For the time invested, I would argue that HIT gives the best adaptation.
Cons: HIT requires the ability to push to maximum all the time which I don't think is feasible or desirable for many trainees. Even with infrequent training, some may overtrain if they try to go to max all the time. Also, there is rumor of amphetamine use and many injuries associated with at least onc popular HIT advocate (give you a hint, initials MM). Also, some people just don't seem to be able to get full fiber recruitment from just one set (again, some HIT proponents do advocate multiple sets at times).
Also, I'm not convinced that one set to failure gives maximal strength gains. That is, some research has found that a second or third set gives additional strength gains. Now, are these strength gains (on the order of maybe 20-30% more than you get with one set) important for everyone? Even the ACSM position paper (used frequently as 'proof' of one set as optimal) states that more frequent training has been found to lead to greater strength increases but there is a serious case of diminishing gains. For some individuals, the extra time invested isn't worth the small payoff received. For a competitive strength athlete, I would say that they are worth it. That's why I said I feel HIT gives the best strength gains for the least amount of time. I just don't think they give the best strength gains overall. Again, my opinion and I don't really want to argue it again.
Periodization: Pros: for certain athletes, periodization can be used to try to bring them to a peak at a specific time or for a specific contest. This especially applies to pure strength athletes like powerlifters and Olympic lifters. But, they only compete sporadically. One major criticism of periodization is how do you propose peaking for a team sport like football where you have to play weekly. Also, most people like to do too much or work too hard all the time. For people like me (I'm a classic overtrainer) strictly periodizing my competitive year helps to keep this from happening. I train easy at specific intensities during the winter and raise the volume and intensity of my work as I near the competitive season in a methodical (some would say anal) fashion.
Another pro is that I think lack of variety is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for most people and why many people stagnate quickly. Periodization (whichever variant you choose from the strict percentages to the more free form versions) mandates changes which I think will help prevent stagnation and plateaus.
Cons: Most of periodization's strengths are also it's weaknesses. As mentioned, when do you peak a team sport like football. At championships? No, if the players aren't at peak for the normal season they won't even qualify so there's a dilemma. Also, the strict percentages of many periodization programs don't allow for daily variations. That is, if I'm supposed to lift 85% of max for 5 reps on a given day, what do I do if I'm tired?
Personally, for the non-competitive-strength athlete, I prefer a more free form of periodization. That is, I would pick a rep range (rather than a specific % of max and rep number) to use for say 4-6 weeks. The athlete is expected to do essentially a double progression between say 6-10 reps to start. So, if one day they are feeling weak, they simply do the best they can but aren't required to get a specific number. By the same token, if they feel really strong, they aren't held back by the reps I think they should be able to get today. After a week of active rest, the athlete would move into a 3-6 rep range and work full tilt for 4-6 more weeks. Etc.
To me, this is sort of the best of both worlds in terms of changing rep targets (which I think somewhat affects what is trained primarily) but still working at one's potential while still taking into accout daily variations in strength.
HG: Pros: Personally, I think HG is the best of both worlds. It can essentially be looked upon as the synthesis of periodization with HIT in that you aren't always working full tilt to the max of your capacity but do so for a period of time. Also, while multiple sets may be done in the early parts of the cycle, as you begin approaching failure all the time, you can drop to a minimal one work set per exercise. And, since cycles can be open-ended, you simply keep adding more weight until you can no longer do so. Then, you back-cycle to a lower intensity and start building up again.
Cons: To be honest, I can't find many cons yet.
Now, hopefully, one thing you've noticed is that all three philosophies share some ideas and really aren't all that different at the most basic level. Periodization may start out with multiple sets but generally short, high intensity programs are done in-season. As stated, I think HG combines the best of both worlds and is especially good.
WHICH PHILOSOPHY IS BEST?
Ok, this brings us to the 1 million dollar question (the one being argued incessantly on m.f.w and elsewhere): Which philosophy is best?
My return question is: What do you mean by best?
That is, do you define 'best' by the most strength gains for the least amount of time invested as your average fitness trainee might. Then, some variant of HIT is probably the best choice. Personally, I would change rep range targets but I don't see any reason for most of my clients to do more than one work set of a given exercise. And, considering that I have a paltry hour to do cardio, stretching, and weights, there isn't honestly enough time to do more than one set so it better be at least close to failure to get the most bang for the buck. Also, from the standpoint of time efficiency, for a competitive athlete in the middle of his or her season, HIT is probably the 'best' way to maintain or improve strength with the least time taken away from other training and competing. But, personally, I'd go with something a bit more extensive during the off season when little no sport training is being done and do a higher volume which I feel will give better strength and/or size gains (again, my opinion and I have no intention of defending it here. That's not the point of this article.)
Or, do you define best as the ability to make small strength gains for a long period of time (say your entire training career)? Then perhaps HG is 'best' for you. Of course, if you don't want to do hard movements like squats, deadlifts and benches (like most of my clients for example), maybe it's not.
If you're a competitive strength athlete, 'best' might be the program which peaks you for a particular competition. In that case, some variant on periodization might be the way to go.
If you are a competitive team athlete, you might start the season doing higher volume training (when you have the time) and cut back to HIT type of training during the pre-season and season to allow more time to practice your sport.
If you're a bodybuilder, why not try any and all of the above. Probably the worst thing you can do is stagnate and never change your program. If what you're doing isn't working, try something else. Don't get stuck in the trap of "My system is the best period." It might be. For now. And when it quits working, try something else. There's no law that says you have to pick one philsophy of training and do it until you die. Play around. I'm willing to bet you'll get better results in the long run. Hell, I'd be willing to almost guarantee it.
Do you see what I'm getting at? 'Best' is a relative term which depends on what you want to accomplish.
I guess my point is this: almost any logical system (based on progressive overload which is the true one valid theory of training (regardless of what Mike Mentzer happens to believe) which doesn't have you overtraining) will yield results on some level or another. The question of "What is the optimal program?" will never be answered as it depend too highly on what you're trying to accomplish. So, how about this for a radical idea. Quit arguing about something that you'll never 'prove' one way or another (my diatribe on proof and truth is also at the 31 page mark but I'm not going to post it unless you guys really want to see it and request I do so via email) and try closing your mouth and opening your mind a bit. Who knows, you might reach some sort of compromise and actually generate some new ideas. Or (if I don't miss my guess) you'll keep up this stupid shit and keep wasting bandwidth arguing about something that you can never prove one way or another.
If I seem unusually irate it's for manyfold reasons (including boredom with my life and the lack of a current girlfriend). But, basically, I'm tired of seeing this same old HIT vs. periodization vs. whatever argument going on as it's an absolute waste of time. Most of the intelligent posters to m.f (who to be honest I've had my differences with in the past) have left because they got tired of it. I don't agree with what a lot of them (like Bryzcki or Specter) had to say but I can respect their convictions and knowledge even if I didn't respect their over-emotional tone of posting and close-mindedness.
Maybe this post will make a difference. But, I doubt it. I don't really care one way or another. I guess I'm kind of like Dan D. in this way. I like pointing out to people when they are being asinine (as everyone including myself has been at some point or another). HIT people get on my last nerve, especially Mentzer preaching his one true theory of training bullshit. Periodization people do too when they say that HIT doesn't 'work' which is also bullshit as both empirical and scientific evidence will tell you. Both groups quit listening to each other years ago and a lot of good training ideas which might have developed by the cooperation of the two. Ah, well.
This post dedicated to the shitty treatment of Ken Mannie by the NSCA. I didn't know the guy (and I'm not going to get as overemotional as some about it) but it was a crappy thing to do. Censoring someone because they print something that disagrees with you is bullshit. So fucking quit it all of you. And, if you bozo ASU rats are still on the net, don't be such weenies to physically threaten someone because then don't agree with you. It's not nice.
Happy training,
Lyle McDonald
Parte 1Last edited by Armando; 28-05-2003, 03:08:31.Commenta
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qui di seguito l'articolo che lanciò il doctor Ken Leistner alla ribalta.
Sensible Training - A Logical Approach to Size and Strength
by Dr. Ken E. Leistner
Preface by Rob Spector
Reading this article which was published about 25 years ago, it is interesting to note that things are the same now, as they were 25 years ago. Some of the anecdotes you might say to yourself "hey, that sounds like so-and-so". Ironic that after all these years, IMO things have gotten *more* confusing in strength training. It seems that people for whatever reasons, have made things much more complicated than what they really are. But enough of my commentary, it is just my opinion and only that.
**************************************************************************************
With all the numerous changes that have taken place in the field of weight training over the years it has never been truer that "the more things change the more they remain the same". Armed with the accurate information collected over the years it is possible for anyone to improve their strength, their muscular endurance (to a certain extent), their cardiovascular endurance, and their appearance (a subjective evaluation) if the interested party is willing to take the brief time necessary to analyze the conditions necessary for inducing muscular growth stimulation.
The requirements haven't changed over the years, and the nonsense put forth by the commercially interested and biased parties hasn't changed either. But most importantly, the irrational approach taken towards training hasn't changed a great deal either, and has prevented the vast majority of weight trainees from reaping even a small portion of the possible benefits made available by the use of the barbell.
Robert Sizer, a former pro-football player, All-American at Richmond University and at one time the most outstanding high school football player in the state of Virginia, was perhaps the first successful athlete in the area to pursue weight training in an attempt to improve his athletic ability at a time that this was believed to make one "musclebound", slow and uncoordinated.
Sizer was an 180lb offensive lineman, that by accounts was stronger and faster than most men weighing 250lbs at the time. At 15 YEARS OF AGE he could squat with 450 lbs (for reps), and bench press 420 lbs.
Sizer trained with a barbell fashioned out of concrete wheels that his father made for him. In the beginning he admitted he didn't really know what he was doing. "All" he did was train hard and brief with heavy weights on the major exercises.
Remarked Sizer:
"Unfortunately, as I became exposed to more people who were involved with training, I left my old methods behind and became bogged down in a progress- stifling method, or more accurately, methods of training...No one showed me how to train; I just went at it like I did everything else, and the hard work on each and every set brought results. But when I saw the other fellows doing things a bit differently, I adopted many of their techniques, not to my benefit".
The point? There are basic considerations one has to take into account when inducing muscular growth stimulation, and this, of course, is the whole point of utilizing weights. Some of the necessary conditions that must be met for optimal results are:
- using heavy movements over a full range of motion - continuing every set of every exercise to a point of momentary but complete muscular failure - using "basic" exercises, i.e, compound movements that work the major muscular structures of the body, like the squat. - training at a level of maximum intensity - limiting the amount of work done - providing the necessary requirements for growth to occur - ensuring that the exercise is truly progressive
Much of this is so obvious that it needs no further explanation, but considering the almost unbelievable amount of false information available, without such a basic understanding the trainee will not be able to formulate a program that will bring results in a manner that is proportionate with the effort expended.
The only way to produce maximum possible increases in muscle tissue mass is by the production of maximum power. This can only be done by utilizing exercises that engage as much of the particular mass as is possible, and only when working over a full range of possible motion. And while it is almost impossilbe to engage 100% of the available fibers, much more growth stimulation will occur if the exercise is carried out over as great a range as is possible. This also assists in the development of increased flexibility, as a heavy weight will pull the involved bodyparts into a fully extended position at the beginning of the movement and will also provide "prestretching" of that involved muscle. It is now apparent that the most important requirement for inducing maximum growth is intensity.
Carrying an exercise to the point of momentary but complete failure ensures that one is training at a point of greatest possible intensity (assuming that the trainee is putting forth effort and "not going through the motions" and thus "failing" long before reaching a point of actual muscular failure). There is no way to gauge the amount of effort being put forth unless one goes to the point of failure. That implies, simply, that 100% of momentary possible effort was put forth.
Also, it is only by working this hard that one can engage the maximum possible amount of muscle fibers. And unless this maximum amount of fibers is worked, growth will be retarded, if not impossible. Many trainees fear this. They are afraid of working as hard as is actually required, and thus they often return to their prior methods of training improperly. It is much easire to perform 4 sets of 8 reps of a particular movement than it is to complete one set *correctly*; for example, doing 15 reps in proper form to a point where it is momentarily impossible to move the barbell with the involved bodypart.
I recently had the "pleasure" of training (for only one session, thankfully) with one of the leading bodybuilders in the United States. I convinced him to try "my way" of doing things, and he finally consented. I coaxed him through a set of leg presses, using approximately 300lbs, and he completed 18 reps. This was followed by a set of full squats, using a fairly light weight (approx. 185 lbs), and he terminated the set long before his strength had been taxed. We then did standing presses and chins, and he did manage to go to a point of failure, although he did take momentary "breaks" during the sets to complain that the "weight is just too light to feel so heavy" and other such gems of wisdom.
The result? He called me the next day to tell me that he was very sore but that he was going to return to his prior method of training because "your way is just too hard". He further admitted that he thought that I was correct - trainng to failure, using a weight, any weight that would allow a reasonable number of repetitions, was the proper way to train - but that he preferred an admittedly improper training method because it was "easier". I explained that while the human body could be damaged by doing "too much work," the body's defense mechanisms made it almost impossible to bring about injury by training "too hard. You'll regurgitate or faint before you cause any real damage to the body, *if* you trained even that hard," I said.
"Well, I'll just stick to what I'm doing," he said. "But, hey, thanks for the time you gave me." Indeed. (And I should of course point out that "my way" of training is not really *my* way. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the development of such common sense principles. I've just had the sense to utilize what is rational, correct, and result-producing).
Common sense would indicate that if one is training at the proper level of intensity, an increased amount of work would be neither desirable nor possible. ONE set of 15-20 reps in the full squat, performed with proper form and done until the trainee can no longer rise from the full squat position, will do more for building the strength and size of the involved muscles than any such number of improperly performed sets of any other leg exercises, including the full squat. And how many sets of full squats, done as described, do you think you could perform in a single workout? How many such sets would you *want* to perform? Thus it becomes obvious that the amount of work must be limited.
One also walks a very thin line in inducing muscular growth. You must work hard enough to induce growth, but not so extensively as to deplete a very definite (but unknown) amount of recovery ability. One can train properly in that all exercises are performed in correct style, taken to a point of momentary failure, etc., but if too much work is done, the system will not be able to provide the necessary factors for growth. Yet many trainees train four, five, six and sometimes even more per week.
Athletes who are preparing for a season of activity will express surprise that they progressed little while lifting weights three or four days per week, running distance and sprints on their "off" days and practicing the skills needed for their particular activity an additional two or three times per week. Their ability to recover has been depleted, and until that ability is restored, no amount of additional work will induce muscular increases. Thus training must be limited to no more than three days/week and in some cases only two/week. And for some extreme cases, training once per week will serve to induce maximal amounts of growth.
Why so-called compound movements? Before I actually knew anything about proper training (and this is not to imply that I know even a fraction of what there is to know now), I realized that there was something, an indefinable something, that wasn't "right" about a number of bodybuilders who trained in the gym where I also trained. (This is not to be misconstrued as a criticism of all bodybuilders. Many have a great deal of athletic ability and fine, athletic-appearing physiques.)
One such man was an advanced trainee (in the sense that he had been training a number of years and had won a number of local physique titles). However, he was missing a certain athletic quality, a harmonious look. My brother put the finger on it when he observed, "He looks like a bunch of bodyparts pasted together. He's all there, big and all, but the total picture looks awkward-no grace, no glow, no..." The point had been made.
The human body's muscular structures are such that I was amazed at the first autopsy I witnessed. After reading GRAY'S ANATOMY and seeing a number of anatomy charts, I had assumed that one could discern individual muscles. This isn't the case. They are so interbound and interwoven, it becomes obvious why so many years of medical training are necessary to figure the entire mystery out. Muscles work in conjunction with each other. Furthermore, greatest growth stimulation will come by working the largest muscles in the body. A secondary growth effect occurs when the major muscle masses are worked, and the statement that the "small muscles will take care of themselves if you work the big ones" is true because of this effect. Thus the greatest possible growth will occur if movements are employed that will engage the major muscular structures of the body. (More on the selection of exact exercises, later).
In addition to inducing growth stimulation, other factors are necessary for increasing the amount of muscle tissue mass. These include sleep, nutrition, and a number of psychological variables such as motivation, resistance to pain and "psyching up", amoung others. Each of these factors is important.
Though the term "progressive exercise" has been used as a catchall to describe weight training activities, most trainees rarely make any attempt to actually have progressive and productive workouts. The "theory" is so logical as to be almost ridiculous, yet it is so often, if not always overlooked. If one were to add 5 lbs to the barbell every two or three workouts, or add another repetition, performed in proper style, with the same weight one used in the preceding workout, growth would occur (assuming that all other previously mentioned factors were taken into consideration and those considerations met), as the system would be constantly exposed to an ever-increasing load. This is progression.
Arthur Jones stated that, with curls as the example when it is possible for a trainee to curl 200 lbs in good form *without* body swing, "then his arms will be as large as they need to be for any possible purpose connected with any sport just short of wrestling bears". This sums up progression pretty well.
I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it's just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, "If you could get to the point where you're squatting 400lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 resp, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don't you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong?" Obviously!
Knowing the basic considerations, it is possible to construct a sensible weight-training program, one that will serve almost anyone's purpose. However, to further clarify matters, I will discuss the choice of the actual exercises. Some are more result-producing than others, and some are also less dangerous.
The available equipment should include a barbell, a squat rack (or some type of high stand that can be used to support a barbell), an overhead bar (or pipe) for the purpose of chinning and two pipes, heavy chairs or parallel bars for the purpose of performing parallel bar dips. If more equipment is available, fine; it will add variety to the program. But more equipment is not necessary to build one to his maximum possible size and strength. The best exercises for the major musculature structures of the body are full squats, stiff-legged deadlifts, standing presses, chins with the palms facing you, parallel bar dips, barbell curls, bent- over rowing motions, pullovers on a bench, shrugs and situps. (I include this exercise only as a means of covering the entire body. The abdominals will receive quite enough work during the performance of other exercises.)
A very productive program would look like this:
1) Full Squats - 15-20 reps 2) Pullovers - 10 reps 3) Standing Presses - 10 reps 4) Chins - 10 reps 5) Dips - 12 reps 6) Barbell Curls - 10 reps 7) Shrugs - 15 reps 8) Stiff-Legged Deadlifts - 15 reps
How many sets of each exercise? One. Two. Certainly never more than three, and if you are working properly, one set of most of these exercises should be more than enough for anyone. Why are these exercises chosen as opposed to some others? Very frankly, personal preference has much to do with this. However, some considerations may clarify my prejudices.
There are no bench presses recommended. Contrary to popular belief the bench press is not a very good exercise for the development of the pectoral muscles. It is fairly good for the development of the anterior deltoid and triceps, but the standing press develops these muscles as well or better (better being defined as more quickly, more directly, with the production of more power or work during an actual repetition of the exercise), as does the parallel bar dip. However, if you care to do bench presses or presses behind the neck in a standing position, feel free to do so. Perhaps you can alternate pressing movements every few weeks, every few workouts, every other workout. You will never suffer from lack of variety.
Why chins with palms facing (curl grip)? While some prefer chins to a behind-the-neck position with a palms-pronated grip, the curl grip gives a higher order of work to the biceps and a greater range of movement to the latissimus muscles. Why stiff-legged deadlifts as opposed to regular deadlifts or cleans? Again, substitute the regular deadlift on occasion, but bear in mind that the stiff-legged deadlift gives the spinal erectors and biceps femoris more direct work than the regular deadlift. The "power clean", while valuable for some purposes, is not necessary for the development of the muscles in question, and due to the speed of movement it places unnecessary demands on the connective tissue of the involved bodyparts.
Obviously there is room for deviation in the choice of exercises. One can at times substitute one pressing movement for another, use dumbbells instead of a barbell, etc. However, the basic routine should be utilized with little alteration, as all the major muscular structures of the body will receive maximal growth stimulation (and if previously mentioned points are taken into consideration).
How often should one train with this program? A maximum of three times weekly. For some, two sessions a week will provide the necessary stimulation without exceeding the recovery ability. Perhaps three workouts one week, two the following week. It is expected that the intelligent individual will be able to discern for himself what is necessary. (It does constantly amaze me, though, how many persons, "intelligent" in other areas, successful in their professions, are helpless in approaching their training and yet are perfectly willing to pursue a course that is unproductive for years). Any time that progress is not forthcoming analyze your approach and if any changes need to be made, it will probably along the lines of reducing the amount of work being done.
If the precepts put forth here seem simple, it is only because they are. Complexly so. Unfortunately, most trainees do not want to hear the simple truth. They feel safer looking endlessly for secrets, miracle potions - almost anything other than admitting that they are not willing to work *hard* enough for the results they desire (a rather common condition actually, but one most often denied).
An example? I was in a very well equipped athletic training center in Minnesota a few months ago and was approached by a young man of approximately 25 years of age. After speaking with him for a few moments, I recalled that I had instructed him in the use of proper exercise style while working with one of the [now defunct] World Football League teams. This athlete had been an outstanding player at a small Midwestern college but had been released by the professional club. We spoke:
"I haven't really been doing too well lately. I want my arms to be bigger," he said. I noticed that they were fairly large already and remarked that perhaps they were as big as they would ever get, in muscular condition, at his present bodyweight. "Well they were once alot bigger."
He told me that he weighed approximately 25 lbs more at that time than he did presently. I pointed this out and told him that his arms had been larger then, as had the rest of his muscular structures.
"But I was fat at that weight," he said. I repeated that perhaps his arms were as large as they were going to be in muscular condition, considering his height, and other hereditary factors, length of muscle, etc. "I won't accept that. They have to get bigger!" As it was, he refused to train his legs and lower back as "I think those parts are already big enough." This was a well-educated young man who had "been around" was doing graduate work in a related field (related to weight training) and yet displayed a somewhat less than rationale attitude to his training.
One more example? A former lacrosse and football player who had been, a number of years prior to our conversation, moderately successful in physique competition and, when initially beginning his weight training activities fairly strong (as evidenced by a bench press of a single rep of close to 400lbs).
"I'm tired of changing my routine every week. There must be some answer," he said. Unfortunately, he trained in a gym with a current Mr. Universe titleholder. "[blank] suggested that I do more chest work." I suggested he stop wasting his time and perhaps attempt a routine very similar to the one outlined above. He agreed and struggled through it, using 150 lbs for 12 squats, 30 lb dumbbells for his pressing and similar weights for the remainder of the routine.
"You mean to tell me that after 10 YEARS of fairly continuous training, that's your limit? You're using 1/4 the weight you used 8 years ago." I was incredulous.
"I know I'm having trouble believing it myself." was his response.
"If this is the result of so-called proper training, you ought to let it go and concentrate on becoming a millionaire." He was college-educated, was in possession of two advanced graduate degrees, and highly successful at his chosen profession.
"But Frank [blank, bodybuilder with some titles] told me that I didn't need to do any really heavy movements for development." I merely told him to look at the workout that he had just taken, compare the results of his efforts over the previous 10 years of training, and evaluate the validity of his method. "Well, I don't know. If I could just win one contest it would have been worthwhile".
Rational? What is too high a price to pay? It wouldn't be as absurd as it is if all of the wasted effort wasn't totally unnecessary. As Bob Sizer remarked:
"If I would have know what proper training consisted of, if someone would have been there to show me, I would have taken everything to failure, would have done a few basic exercises and probably would still be playing football. Even at my age." He smiled.
It's for Bob Sizer and the many people like him that this article was written.
----------------------
Sul set singolo....di Matt Brzycki
MORE ON SINGLE SETS
by Matt Brzycki
Strength Coach Princeton University
QUESTION:
"Is the single set principle only used on major lifts?" -Keith Lane Pueblo, Colorado
ANSWER:
First, I should explain the "single set principle" for the benefit of those readers who may be unfamiliar with it. The "single set principle" that you refer to is usually the identifying trademark of the so-called "high intensity training." This is a nontraditional method of strength training in which one set of each exercise is performed for a prescribed number of repetitions. It is called "high intensity" because each set is performed to the point of muscular failure. In other words, each set is continued to the point where the lifter cannot perform any more repetitions. To encourage a sufficient overload, muscular failure is sometimes followed immediately by several additional post-fatigue reps -- known as either negatives or breakdowns.
Negatives (also called forced reps) are accomplished by having a training partner raise the weight while the lifter resists the movement during the lowering phase. For example, suppose you reached muscular failure on a barbell bench press. Your partner would help you raise the weight off your chest until your arms are extended. When you lower the weight back to your chest, your partner adds a little extra resistance by pushing down on the bar.
Breakdowns (also called regressions) are another way of achieving muscular overload. When performing breakdowns, you (or your training partner) quickly reduce the starting weight by about 25 to 30 percent and the lifter does 3 to 4 post-fatigue reps with the lighter resistance. Let's say that you did 14 reps with 100 pounds on the leg extension before reaching muscular failure. You (or your partner) would immediately reduce the weight to about 70 to 75 pounds and would then attempt to perform 3 to 4 reps with the lighter weight. In a certain sense these post-fatigue reps (either negatives or breakdowns) are a second set . . . but they've come immediately after reaching muscular failure. Since there is little or no recovery time between these "sets," the additional post-fatigue reps are simply an extension of the first set.
If you've ever performed an exercise to the point of muscular failure, you'd quickly understand why it's been dubbed "high intensity training!" Don't be misled by the program's brevity or simplicity. When performed correctly, a high intensity (or single set) program can be just as productive as a multiple set program -- provided, of course, that each set is performed to the point of muscular failure. Whereas a multiple set program is successful due to the cumulative effect of each set, a single-set-to-failure program is successful due to the cumulative effect of each repetition. This type of training is currently being used by at least five professional football teams. At the collegiate level numerous strength coaches, like Mike Wolf of Lehigh, encourage their athletes to train in a high intensity fashion. Other schools where this training methodology is utilized include Michigan, Penn State, Wake Forest and Providence. There's even a High Intensity Training Newsletter that targets this particular type of strength training.
Keith, your question mentions "major lifts." Since I'm a former competitive weightlifter and a reader of the popular trade magazines, I think I'm fairly safe in assuming that the major lifts you refer to are exercises that generally work a large amount of muscle mass, such as the squat, bench press and incline press. Strength coaches and other fitness professionals also call such movements as "core" exercises, which are those exercises that they think should comprise the backbone of a routine. Well, to say that there are major lifts is to suggest that there are also minor lifts . . . or those exercises that are somewhat less important. Indeed, some movements have been unceremoniously classified as "auxiliary" or "supplemental" exercises. But, aren't all exercises important? For example, is a bench press more important than a lat pulldown? No, not really. Both movements serve a purpose in strengthening specific muscle groups. As a matter of fact, both of these exercises are equally important in order to provide muscular balance between the back and the chest, thereby reducing the risk of injury. Should a squat be a core exercise while a neck extension is a supplemental exercise? Again, the answer is no. Although a neck extension works considerably less muscle mass than a squat, a neck extension is infinitely more important since it protects a wrestler from cervical injury. Yet I've never seen any neck movements listed as core exercises. The point is this: all exercises are important. Therefore, all exercises can be performed using a single set principle. And if an exercise should receive more emphasis, it should be based on it's role in injury prevention not in the amount of muscle tissue it exercises or because a -- particular article declared that it should be a core exercise.
Thanks for your question, Keith, and best wishes for strength and health in the seasons ahead.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Find a way
ArmandoCommenta
-
ecco l'articolo di cui parlavo.
Commenta
-
Grazie tante!
Un'ultima domanda per vedere se gli allenamenti vanno bene e stanno riuscendo basta guardare se la progressione dei carichi è costante o ci sono altri fattori da valutare?
CiaoCommenta
-
La progressione del carico (o delle ripetizioni) innanzitutto poi ci sono numerosi altri parametri......Originally posted by Akkawe
Grazie tante!
Un'ultima domanda per vedere se gli allenamenti vanno bene e stanno riuscendo basta guardare se la progressione dei carichi è costante o ci sono altri fattori da valutare?
CiaoEnrico e stop!Commenta
Commenta