BaseStrengthAI is more reliable than a coach, cheaper than an Excel template!👇👇👇 www.BaseStrength.com/the-app Bromley Merch from Barbell Apparel only available HERE! 👇👇👇 barbellapparel.com/Bromley
Quick point : the same bodyfat % on a lean guy vs a mass monster will look masisvely different. Bodyfat % decreases when you add muscle but maintain the same bodyfat. Its a % of total mass after all.
@@capraagricolaWhat kinda limp wristed soys you hanging out with son? I weight 6 million pounds of pure muscle all thanks to the nautilus curl machine
That lat the pullover machine author Jones designed is something else. Dorian fell in love with it and disproportionately grew his back and ribcage making his arms look small.
@@larrybaba5635Which was pretty much standard issue dfor guys at Gold's in the late 1970's and early 1980's....Ever watch Tom Platz training video's? (well known speed freak at the time)....Mike was hardly the only one. At least he admitted to it rather than toe the Weider/Arnold Company line...."For finishing touches, on an already great physique, only just before competition..........BUT we are all drug tested by the I.F.B.B????"
@@algrundau9441 Mike only admitted the Amphetamines. Neither he nor any other professional admitted steroid use during their careers as it would have affected sales of Weider products or other endorsements negatively. Dorian was on Tren back in the day but kids were tricked that he grew using Mega Mass 4000.
Arthur Jones deserves credit for the Nautilus machine design. He used variable cams to create a resistance curve to maximize muscular effort in relation to the natural power curve. Constant tension as well as regulating difficulty for each exercise was a quantum leap for exercise science. During the 1980's, Fort Benning Ga. Building 4 gym was equipped with a bunch of Nautilus machines and guys got strong using the machines. Were we bodybuilding competitors? No, but we were strength athletes. I generally prefer free weights over machines, but some machines are specifically more effective than free weights for certain movements, or at least a valuable addition to free weights. Hammer Strength and other machines have filled the void vacated by Nautilus.
@Mantastic-ho3vm Many businesses go under. But that does not change the fact that the variable cam design was a major innovation for weightlifting machines. The design is proven by the fact that many top tier bodybuilders use such machines in their routines. Nikola Tesla never made too much money, but that doesn't mean his inventions weren't significant.
@Mantastic-ho3vm Nautilus went out of business because competitors made inferior copies of the machines which they could price a lot lower. To this day there is no better pullover machine than the original Nautilus pullover.
"This is something that permanently stains my view of Mentzer" Same. There are just so many examples of blatant intellectual dishonesty that I am consistently astonished that so many people hold his words in such high regard.
Honestly - it is hard to tell with bodybuilding pros how much of the bullshit is them marketing their products and how much of the bullshit is because they are meatheads with good genetics who trained hard, ate hard, and juiced hard for years and think that the random things they decided to do are a secret trick.
Been training for 6 years seriously and I like what Mentzer has to say. I think he brings up good points and articulates them well. Mainly the greater emphasis on recovery (I’ve noticed better results working out each muscle to exhaustion once a week). Why are people against his principles of intensity and recovery? Not saying he’s perfect, but I think he articulates some important principles well
Oi mate. Video came up yesterday from "Renaissance Periodization" going into all little details about HIT, and pros and cons. It's 25 mins long but really educational. I surely learned a lot anyway😂 As to why people critique it, you said it yourself-it's not perfect. In essence, while he's mostly right about recovery time- some muscles recover waaay faster then others, so it would be benifical to train them more then once a week for best results. And regarding intensity, again, Mentzer is mostly right, BUT doing reps till *absolute* failure gives basically same results doing sets with 2 or 3reps in reserve, and it's much safer injury wise. And yeah, never sacrifice form of exercise for extra rep in the end, especialy if you are a stong lad who lifts some really heavy shit. Sorry for a long comment 😅
@@AtomCat357I agree with a lot of what Dr. Mike had to say about it. There is a lot of nuance that goes into this particular training method and what muscle group you are targeting. Any training that claims to be the end all be all will all be treated as suspect. I’m not saying we’ve learned every aspect of exercise science, but we have a firm understanding of how muscle hypertrophy works.
Important comment from Dr. Mike; HIT can work for genetically gifted. The average gym bro could probably benefit from more volume. The Colorado experiment involved an ex Mr America. Talking about talent ...
I love how a "detrained" Casey who had been aggressively dieting for 6 weeks prior to his initial measurements and photographs is more jacked than I and most will probably ever be. Not a complaint, just an observation. The grind is where all the fun is anyway!
Consider eating more and also blasting test + deca. Equipoise for the off-season ofcourse and spice in tren for a peak. That's probably what Kacey was using
Anyone who's done any training for a while KNOWS that regaining lost muscle mass is FAR easier than getting that size initially. I lost 15 lbs when the gyms were closed from March 2020 until June 2020. When they re-opened and I was able to train and eat normally (for me, at least), I put that 15 lbs back in almost no time. It's not much different than paying bodybuilders to intentionally fatten up and then go back on a contest diet, using a certain supplement company's fat-burning products.
Exactly I think at lot of those gains Casey made in a short span was down to his muscle memory gaining it all back from what he lost,this video is just clickbait,I believe in HIT training but this experiment is bullshit
Can someone tell me the physiological basis that someone is able to gain back muscle quicker than if the person has never been that large before? It just seems these are observation of others but that is not science. As for satellite cells being the catalyst for this difference- what study has ever proven this?
@@williammann9816 It's called real-world (or operational) science. People who've lifted weights for years from all walks of life can attest to this. It's no difference than you remembering something you once learned is far easier than learning it initially. Bodybuilders discovered things in the real-life applications, DECADES before scientists were able to get into the weeds and explain it in a lab. Said another way, people don't have to know HOW something works to know THAT something works. For example, old-timers KNEW that they got stronger and fuller muscles, eating red meat vs. fish or chicken. But, they didn't necessarily know why. Years down the road, scientists found that red meat had iron, creatine, and more B vitamins, which contributed to greater muscle size and strength.
I wish the human body was such a freakishly well built machine that it would be capable of achieving this under normal circumstances. Imagine an entire world where everyone looks like Rob Liefield's Captain America. It would be a beautiful and absolutely horrifying sight. Been binging your channel after rediscovering you a few months ago. Forgot how good you are. Trying to get back into training because I've turned into a sad, soft boy at 23 from the big, strong guy I was at 21. Big Dreams and Bad Genes, indeed.
Maybe in the future if we are able to gene-edit out the myostatin gene we could achieve that sort of bodybuilder world, although the ethics of doing something like that are very questionable.
Dude you did that ish! I purchased Mike system in the eighties when he sold it through mail order, and when I first tried it at 16, I grew like crazy BUT looking back on it around my later teen years I found that what I was doing prior to Mike’s system was simply over training, what I can give him credit for is he taught me the importance of recovery and that can vary from person to person. To keep pushing the maximum weight to failure caused me to have injuries, joint issues later in life, etc…
What do you mean by maximum weight? HIT is a moderate force workout. You can't injure yourself with a weight that you can take to 10 reps to failure under very slow and strict control, the focus is on the muscle contraction not lifting heavy weights. I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you trained incorrectly and injured yourself with own spin on a powerlifting to failure workout.
@@eetCCI think he mustve done Rest Pause, which is another method Mentzer pushed. Max, once, Max 10 seconds later with spotter, 10 seconds later drop 20% etc...
I wish I had the original pamphlet to show some of you hard headed know it ALL after I’ve been around the block 20yrs before you were born azz MFers! Mike was pushing towards 1 maximum set after whatever he considered a warm up, dude was coked out, no disrespect!
I remember reading about the Colorado experiment in ‘the 4 hour body’ a decade ago. I thought it was complete horseshit from the beginning. That book does have some good stuff in it though.
I've tried both methods....High Volume, and Low Volume HIT. Both work. Sometimes I feel the High Volume approach is better, but I set lifetime records in strength during prolonged HIT approaches. High Volume brings on muscle soreness within 24 hours. With HIT, there is a 2 day lag. It seems the HIT bodybuilders are bigger and fuller, but I think that's because they're able to avoid over training, which can happen if you're not careful with the High Volume approach, particularly if you're natural. Thank you.
@@PreranaChaudhari-zw6ge I find that variety is king. The body is very adaptive. I do Periodization training where I switch up weight and rep ranges every 4 weeks. I have a feeling that going part of the year at a HIT lifter, and part of the year as a VOLUME lifter, is probably best. I've read that each of the two method creates hypertrophy of the muscles, obviously,...but through different means.
@@westfieldartworks8188 probably the most intelligent take I've seen in the comments. You're absolutely right about adaptation and peridization/switching things up. The periodization part of training is always absurdly underappreciated by people on both sides of this argument/topic.
I’m doing HIT training, but even if I saw a lot of gains initially with this approach, it increases the recovery time with a lot. I’ve adjusted it so that I do compound exercises as normal sets, and then I use rest pause sets for isolation exercises, and finishing them off with a drop set. Going way beyond failure on compound exercises creates way too much systemic fatigue.
I’ve found the bigger issue with forced reps on compounds is the technique required for each rep. Forced reps and rest pause sets seem much better in machines where you simply need to focus on engaging the desired muscle maximally in 1 dimension
I’ve been forced into it by schedule issues, and it’s worked well enough. The recovery rollercoaster is absolutely wild. The 48 hours after my leg workouts was legitimately debilitating, like I actually worried about what would happen if I had to run from something urgently
@@LAK_770 I just discovered HIT training and have begun to implement it. It's been 4 days since I did legs and I still have trouble getting out of a chair. I think I don't know what I'm doing...
I’ve been lifting weights for 15+ years. I’m in shape, have muscle and strong. I’ve switched to a HIT program the last four months. And Holy shit! I’m much bigger, stronger. I’m changing. And my work out are very quick. My joints are improving cause there’s no volume any more. Just try it people what can hurt.
I suspect that anyone making that switch - and also the OPPOSITE switch from HIT to volume- after several years of one style of training, will experience something similar.
@@scottjackson4558 - It would take several pages to describe it fully so I’ll give you the cliff notes version. I only did 3 times per week (was natural) and incorporated supersetting everywhere i could, whereas Dorian only did supersets on one exercise combo. I also did free weight, barbell squats, whereas Dorian gave them up (due to an injury) for leg presses. Leg presses never really did anything for me, whereas freeweight barbell squats really packed on size for me (in a squat cage with a parter - so when I failed, I could always dump the barbell onto the bars in an emergency). I also inserted extra rest days when I felt too fatigued to workout on my programmed day. If you feel fatigued it’s always better to wait between 1-3 days (it’s an individual determination) to workout because it means your muscles haven’t overcompensated from the previous workout. Remember Dorian had insanely gifted world class genetics and was on a lot of steroids, so if you train like Mr. Olympia you won’t see results (except in the very beginning).
@@scottjackson4558 - Oh, and the distinction between what I did and Arthur Jones protocol (which has been almost universally debunked) called for 3 full body workouts a week.
Funny. EVERYBODY tried it back in the 70's, supervised by Jones-trained professionals, and it was the only training protocol that didn't work. That's why Nautilus went bankrupt after the disaster of the "Boyer Coe Experiment," in 1982.
Arthur Jones was a business man, nothing more. His idea of H.I.T. was to get the maximum number of people in, and out of the gym as quickly as possible. His target audience wasn't bodybuilders, but housewives, and businessmen, people that lead busy lives, without much free time. A workout time of only 30 minutes, was the hook. Jones was also guaranteed a full gym membership, with the customer hardly using it! The first 'dormant members '. Jones could also sell his Nautilus machines, double bubble!! Jones then wanted to target Bodybuilders, enter Mike Mentzer. Mentzer used his influence to convince bodybuilders they only needed to spend 30 minutes in the gym, a couple of times per week to build a contest ready physique. What they both failed to tell people was, Mentzer didn't build his physique using Jones methods, he built his physique using tried, and trusted training methods. There's plenty of people having witnessed Mentzer training for a couple of hours at a time in the gym. The whole H.I.T. plan, was a business plan, to sell equipment, memberships and, books to get certain people rich, and it worked for Jones at least.
@@Aristocratic_Utensil Dorian developed his own version of H.I.T training system, that included more volume than what Jones and, Mentzer were advocating. There was a very public argument between Dorian and, Mentzer in the 90's, where Mentzer tried to convince Dorian he was doing too much volume in his training! There's plenty of information available, even scientific studies that disproves the effectiveness of H.I.T. When you've been in the game as long as I have, you've seen it all, heard it all, done it all, and the majority is pseudo science and, bullshit.
I think you're a bit hard on Mentzer. At least, I think HIT was not just some money-making scam to him. I think he truly believed in it and trained with it.
Mentzer even admitted he did more sets "just in case" and says as a result "he never met his true potential". Then there's Columbo's claim of seeing him do high volume as well, so it looks like Mike didn't quite practice what he preached.
@@KennyTC63 well your answer's right there isn't it? Man didn't even acquire his physique with HIT, let alone compete with it. No way he would market it for financial reasons after his career, surely not
Arnie humpers and high intensity dogmatics in general hate Mentzner because he scientifically proved they've always done it the wrong way and their pride won't let them admit it
Yeah but Meltzer also believed in drinking his own piss, smoking meth to cut weight and believed in sucking off other men for rent money instead of getting a job ...
One problem is that the sample size is too small (and there's no "control" portion). You can't call it a *"study"* with a sample size of 1 person (Casey Viator) or even 3 people (Viator, Mentzer, & Yates) (also, no "control" component, with people training conventionally). The "experiment" [😅 - NO] also failed to control for drug use, diet, age, genetics, and more. One thing you notice right away, is the difference in both lighting, & posing, in the "before", and "after", pictures.
As bullshit as it might have been the old chain driven nautilus machines were still amongst the best machines ever made if not the best. Gyms didn't like them because they were more expensive than cable driven machines due to component costs and they had a lot of upkeep but if your gym had them and and kept them well oiled they were the smoothest machines you ever used.
you should do a full video about HIT and Mike though, the RU-vid algorithm has been pushing mentzer so hard lately and it’s making me want to buy his book
HIT is a cult, and they often ignore many of the things Mentzer said, like "HIT is for the advanced" and "beginners should learn to clean and press" (how you going to clean and press to failure? etc)
I did buy his book. It's an interesting read. I wish his methodology actually worked. How convenient would it be to be able to workout really effing hard for one set per muscle group, rest for damn near a week, and be jacked out of your mind 🤣
A full video about Mentzer would basically be the Wrestler with Mickey Rourke. He quit lifting altogether at 28 because he was mad Arnold won the Olympia in '80, got fat, developed a meth habit and was having young bodybuilders live with him to pay his rent. I might do it in the future, but I need to space my HIT-hit-pieces out
@TyghtAlso, Clean & Press at hypertrophy loading parameters, then HIT style isolation work would probably be better than 99% of what goes on in the average gym-goers training.
This study is bull___ Steroids Muscle memory Bulking after dieting False claims regarding body fat% That being said high intensity (not necessarily to concentric failure/0 RIR) low volume approach can build a significant amount of muscle. probably less than high volume but still an impressive physique. Most people don't wanna spend 4+ days in the gym, so it implies they need to implement some sort of high intensity training routine. It's very hard to do high volume on 2-3 workouts per week
"Younger women, faster cars, bigger crocodiles." Society has never improved, technology has, but this guy just sounds like the 70's version of Tate. Truly history is just a series of repeating events.
99% of Tate haters don't even know the reason they hate Tate is based off stupid propaganda lol. not saying I like him, I actually dislike him more than like him, but Tate was never a women hater. everyone just got that off of no context clips and all the sheep swallowed it up. Tate himself said women are the most precious in the world and daughters should be treated like princesses while boys should be treated like soldiers. he literally believes you should treat men worse than women...
Given that those things all are simply boatloads of fun, that really tells you quite little. At most it means that the person uses a lifestyle image as a part of his personal brand. The only matter of real interest is about the actual products he uses that image to sell you. You might as well say Tate is the 2020s version of Arnold, Castro, or Churchill because they all used cigar smoking prominently and calculatedly to brand themselves with a bosslike masculinity.
“He put on 46 pounds of mass and lost 17 pounds of fat in 28 days.” And he clearly got shredded as _F._ There’s one sure-fire way to accomplish such amazing results. It’s HIT - no, it’s actually steroids. That’s how you achieve Herculean recomp in 28 days.
This encapsulates a lot of my issues with HIT. I've used it the last couple of months and have seen some noticeable growth. I think the two biggest reasons it can work is it stresses you to push yourself to get the body to respond accordingly and to actually recover in between workouts. It's not perfect but I've had moderate success. My issue comes with its sometimes wild claims of how much you can grow and how much fat you can lose by doing HIT alone while not having to do any cardio. Some suggest that cardio is not necessary when the majority of exercise science would suggest that it pretty good for you. Just because it's a great system to try doesn't mean it does everything for you.
Mike Mentzer explicitly, plainly, clearly states you need cardio, aerobic exercise, to burn fat and explains why. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eZhNtZPCA-M.html
Indeed, it is a great way to hit your genetic potential regarding your cardiovascular fitness. How so? Well, think about it. Go for a two minute ALL OUT sprint(if you voluntarily slow one bit, you will be shot in the head). By the end of that sprint, you would collapse, drowning in air, possibly ending up in the hospital. Yet, everyone knows that “sprint significantly outperforms steady state cardio in improvements of VO2 Max (time efficiency wise). That’s irrefutable. Now, although HIT(the kind taught by Dr. Doug McGuff, Drew Baye, Dr. Ellington Darden) doesn’t necessarily drown you, it certainly drowns the muscle being worked upon. Usually a bigger muscle(leg exercises) in need of tremendous amount oxygen enough to deprive the entire body’s oxygen very quickly will sometimes (if you’re not very cardiovascularly “adept”) give you a significant “punched in the liver” type of breathing. All this, in one two minute set to all out failure. Do this to every muscle and you will be improving your cardiovascular system better than if you sprinted for two minutes. THIS, is why modern HIT is perfect for cardiovascular adaptation/health. There is simply NO NEED for cardio. Sources? Search up “Dr. James Steele HIT on Cardiovascular Health.”
"My issue comes with its sometimes wild claims of how much you can grow and how much fat you can lose by doing HIT alone while not having to do any cardio" There you go again projecting, HIT is the best for building period there is no debate to be had You are transcribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with Mentzner and his version of HIT directly onto it. Kinda like how calling everyone who plays video games the same as hyperactive twitch streamers who do off the wall shit for clicks. Stop conflating modern advertisement culture with something that was around before the people on tiktok were even born, that's something a child does
@@1GHOUL1I did a drew baye routine earlier and it sure got things going, even with a minute of rest between and suboptimal setup, I got an easy 165bpm over 45 minutes, 25 being actively engaging muscles.. 400 calories supposedly. I also went for a 45min bike ride before, 137bpm average, 322 Cals.. my max hr is 200 and resting is 53 ish
Great video man. Also weird place to say it but you got me into doing RDLs to assist my deadlift and holy crap I haven’t felt my glutes activate that in my many months of deadlifting. I can tell my numbers are gonna blow up so thanks a lot man.
@@wizzelhoart they were sore for hours after afterwards. Amazing feeling. I’ve always kinda had a flat butt so I’m glad it’s getting targeted now. Hopefully these will help my deadlift
1978 my cousin owned a Nautilus gym. Over a winter as an 18 year old I went from 177 lbs to 185lbs with this training. It made me a stronger pitcher. At 17 I dead lifted 405 with horrible technique at the YMCA. Arnold's book was all we had. We knew crap back then.
That’s not bad. Prob noobie gains helping there…the problem now is that there’s SO much information and much of it conflicting that you were prob better off back then lol. Building muscle is work for sure but there shouldn’t be channels on here with fucking 10 years worth of videos after awhile how many times are you repeating yourself or even worse just putting out info contradictory to previous statements for the sake of new content and money..the fitness industry will ALWAYS have a new thing, whether a it’s a silly exercise or program or volume range and of course the life blood of it all SUPPLEMENTS!! I mean it’s not too difficult, it’s just a slow process and we’re in a generation who thinks a 3minute song is long.
Appreciate the video and the different look at the research. More of this should be done in other fields. At the same time, I never had better results with my own workouts than when I started HIT.
Another video trying to debunk HIT. Fact is it’s work for thousands, nobody said it was the only way to train but it’s the most efficient and least likely to injure people. A lot of people are doing some form of HIT and don’t even realise it.
I'm oriented towards high intensity low volume training as an individual, but I've gotta respect the balls not just for calling out this experiment but also calling out any other content creators who bring it up with that cowardly centrist 'We'll never know' scepticism about it
...What does centrism have to do with it? Quit projecting your political bias into bodybuilding discussions, bruh. Or any other types of discussions, for that matter. You have *serious* issues if you think centrism or skepticism are cowardly.
I run a not-for-profit gym in Scotland. Trained for 30 years. 10 years ago, after years of rejecting Mentzer and listening to everyone else, same old same old I tried HIIT in Mentzer style. Honestly, I've read the literature to death, I; 've competed 3 times. 3 months, literally gave me the best gains in the shortest time I've ever had, but it was far too taxing on the body. You can tear shreds out of it but it bloody worked for me.
Yeah but how do you know you didn't start gaining just because hiit demands intensity and maybe you weren't actually trying or giving any intensity before that. Most people don't use proper intensity. These methods are disproven. Meaning it's factual you would have gained more muscle doing a different program. As long as your competence and diet were the same
Try German Volume Training ~ It's almost opposite of Hiit, if you get some fast gains, then you know it's just the variety of training, not the specific technique that's causing the adaptation. GL m8 \m/
I watched Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer use HIT for two months in 1979 just prior to the Mr. Olympia that resulted in Mentzer placing 2nd to Frank Zane. They performed four sets for large body parts and two sets for small body parts twice per week. At the time, this was a very brief workout program. Viator went on to take third in the 1981 Olympia, so yes, I'm a believer. With that being said, it does make sense there were undiscussed outside factors involved in the Colorado experiment. In 1991 I lost forty pounds by hardly eating and not training. In 1992 I spent a month doing just pullups and dips two or three times per week. I increased my caloric intake back to where it was when I weighed forty pounds heavier. The result is I gained nineteen pounds of muscle and lost two pounds of fat in just 30 days.
I met Ray Mentzer. He told me that Casey's sister was huge, she had naturally more muscle than most men and she had no interest in training. He said that Casey had the genetics to be huge, that is why he would get big which ever way he trained. Ellington Darden said no one followed Casey around during the experiment, so who knows what Casey did to augment his gains. So even though I did train HIT and it suited my lifestyle better, from meeting both these guys, I had no illusions... no fast track to huge muscle gains. I might add, that the Colorado Experiment is not repeatable, given it's claimed parameters.
Arthur Jones claimed that he hired a bodyguard to watch Casey all day long to make sure he trained and didn't take steroids. I don't believe that for 1 second. Even if he had a guy watch him, Casey is not going to let the guy in the bathroom with him or watch him sleep. Casey was taking anabolics and Arthur Jones knew it. Arthur was a smart guy. He paid Casey well and rigged the experiment. I'm not disappointed because I knew the experiment was too good to be true.
On the contrary there was someone that followed Casey around and shadowed him he was hired by Arthur Jones to make sure Casey did what he was supposed to do eat what he was supposed to sleep what he was supposed to and not take steroids. Ellington Darden never sd that. Was the other way around.
An issue I’ve found with many fitness programs over the years is there is just enough good information mixed in with the massive piles of bullshit that it’s actually convincing.
Bodybuilding/fitness/training will *ALWAYS* be one of those topics where you can ask 10 different "experts" in the field the exact same question and all 10 of them will give you a different answer. Now, of course BB is very nuanced and not everybody responds differently to different programs. But even when it comes to the most basic fundamentals or surface level knowledge, there really is no 100% collective agreement on anything lol
Great video. HIT is the flavor of the day in fitness circles and I firmly believe that most of the holy grail claims by its proponents probably stem from the fact that people are actually training with intensity for the very first time, something they could have been doing with volume in the first place. Mentzer had a great physique, but his disciples online are insane.
It comes into favor every few years, then disappears for a while, just to sneak back up again when enough people have forgotten about the obvious bullshit of it all. In the early aughts, HIT acolytes all over the internet were unironically calling themselves "HIT jedis", and the ones who were lifetime drug free (a real point on pride for a lot of them) often looked like they had never even seen a weight. It was a weird time, especially since powerlifting and other strength sports hadn't really taken off like they would a few years later and even most home gym bodybuilders at the time didn't want to look like bodybuilders. So weird, in fact, that I really can't believe this bullshit is apparently back in the public consciousness again. I wonder how many times people will have to keep learning the exact same lessons just so some silly clown can sell a program or other load of shit to their followers. People are basically goldfish, apparently.
@@RevShifty People always want the silver bullet and "do one set super hard, train like 1-2 hours a week max, get jacked fast" will always find a new audience. Its funny because people knew about Mentzer and his style even before the internet took off but so many people think its some sort of uncovered ancient secret that no one else knows about.
@@TheGreektrojan I mean, training to total failure can work for some people. A small few. As long as they know it's going to tank their recovery into the ocean floor and they will probably still get less than optimal results. But it seems like it can work as a strength program for some, as long as they keep their recovery in mind. Dr Ken Leistner was a big proponent, and he helped powerlifting get established as a sport. He also trained a bunch of collegiate and pro athletes over the years. But even he was mostly done as a trainer by the mid to late 90s, and he used HIT style training to focus more on strength since it's pretty terrible for natural size. He was pretty infamous for the intensity of his training, though; he used an old ship's anchor chain in many workouts, and was doing a lot of heavy sandbag and stone work before most people even knew what that was. Dave Tate of Elite FTS and formerly Westside Barbell used it when he first became a powerlifter, too. He started lifting at ~13, and that's what the older powerlifters who took him under their wings trained him on, so that's what he used until Westside found him and brought him in. But there's a reason he has stuck to everything but HIT ever since being trained in a different format. He's pretty open about how damaging HIT was to his body for all those years. But those are the only people I can think of who had any real success with that style. But they were birth powerlifters and one of them literally changed his entire training as soon as he was exposed to anything different.
@@RevShifty I train much closer to failure/relatively low volume so I get it and agree. Its just not one set, I don't think its super magical, nor do I credit Mentzer for some profound insights into training this way. Pushing the intensity lever on training doesn't negate all of the other well established principles of training (autoregulation, progressive overload, fatigue management, adjusting volume where necessary etc...), nor do I think Mentzers protocol offers anything particularly useful in regards to that.
I think mentzer is right when it comes to recovery. I dont know about only doing a set or whatever but not hitting the same muscle more then twice a week has helped me grow a lot these last few months.
I've always found the emphasis of the 'one set' thing is just a hard focus on progressive overload across the easiest to manipulate methods of progression. In most programs volume is also factored in as a means of progressive overload, but in my experience it seems like most lifters aren't advanced enough to practically need to double/triple their overall tonnage to continually make gains. Generally speaking that one set plus the warmups (when applicable) seems to be plenty to induce growth, at least for me.
tl;dw of the video: it is half true. half exaggeration / myths. just as expected. HIT still works btw & Nautilus machines like the pull over are fantastic. But you wont get the results in the experiment, thats super human & lied about.
I've tried a LOT of programming. HIT works well pre 3 weeks of 95-80% benching to prime me up in putting all I can into a set. Couple that with it working for gaining lean mass if done right as you get to push max effort and then rest to grow and it's completely viable as a block on accessories. With that said...the Colorado Experiment was weird
100%. And if it wasn't weird....it's literally just one dude. Could have spouted wings and it would still be only one data point. Doesn't disprove HIT, just makes this a bad data point
Well now...we seem to be in a pickle! What say you to pushing hard at 90% for no more than 2 sets of 2, backing off and doing some speed work (my favourite is 7*3, 80-85% emom or e2mom) and then going to positive failure (2 working sets per exercise) on accessories or even static holds for hypertrophy blocks? I'd say it's great for individual muscle activation. And that makes us lift better as a unit.
I mean, if you just look at the indicators on the surface very quickly, you can kind of determine if someone’s full of shit. Exotic animal ownership is usually a very bad sign.
Nah, The colorado experiment is laid out in extreme detail in Nautilus Bulletin number 3. There were several other athletes involved other than Viator that had incredible results. It also lays out the purpose of the Experiment as well. Alot of douche bags make videos without actually knowing anything at all its UH Mazin
• Dorian was using gear when he was a professional [take a look at what his present physique looks like], making *whatever* training program he'd do ⬆️orders of magnitude⬆️ more effective; and, list of Dorian's injuries using HIT: [3/94, left shoulder ligament tear; 4/94, left thigh tear; 6/94, biceps tear; 7/97, right thigh tear; 8/97, stomach rupture; 9/97, triceps tear, torn 3/4 off the bone]. • Casey Viator died of a massive heart attack. • Mike Mentzer later admitted he was using amphetamines (in addition to gear) for training purposes [he was also comitted to a psychiatric hospital multiple times]. "Twice during his contest prep, Mike awoke to find himself 'at death's door'. He was so fatigued that he couldn't even raise his arms, and had to stay in bed for the remainder of the day." Mike Mentzer died at age 49, in 2001, of a heart attack. (anecdotal - commenter on one of the "Mike Mentzer's HIT: Behind The Scenes" You Tube videos) "Doing insanely heavy quarter-squat movements while training with Casey Viator with possibly 1,000 lbs, which he admitted in an interview much later were unnecessary to build size or strength, and that much lighter, and safer poundages were ideal."
Not to mention: a bodybuilding biographer followed Dorian around and recorded that he did something closer to 14 sets. Not one set🤣 even if you adjust for warm ups, he was probably averaging 10 heavy sets
HIT is a big scam although I got muscle mass on the Dorian version (taking steroids mind you), I noticed that if I do more exercises I gain more muscle mass. It is much better to train 1-3 reps short to failure for mass and strength cuz you can do more volume which builds more mass and strength. HIT is a system for ego lifters or folks who are too lazy but still want some muscles.
Alexander, your work here is about as informed as we can get without being there. One possible precursor to Arthur's "to failure" theory was a popular routine of 1 set of 20 reps in the squat. It did work, yes, but it played out after about a month or so when progress would come to a screeching halt, that and boredom peaked. Another of his theories was the superior effects of negatives and I suspect it was because he might've thought there was more money to be made developing another class of machines to accommodate these heavier moves without spotters. Hmm? Alas, Nautilus machines would never go on to be the primary factor in winning elite bodybuilding championships nor would they ever even get close to creating world class lifters, say in powerlifting. Arthur's Colorado experiment WAS world class marketing if we accept its deception. Too bad Casey never sat down for an extensive interview (as best I recall) to set the record straight. He died almost exactly a decade ago as I type.
I agree. The owners of the gym i go to bought it in 2020 during the shutdown. While it was closed, they repaired and replaced a lot of equipment. Everything they replaced was with nautilus equipment. I can say I'm not a fan, and it seems maybe they aren't as enamored by it anymore either, as they just replaced the last of the old crossovers with a different brand. Also, i like how you put "to failure" in quotation marks. I view "to failure" as a very subjective statement myself, considering that, from what I've seen, HIT guru's can't even agree on what failure actually is.
@ernienegrete5702 you're correct. That is ONE definition of failure. But there are more. Just talk to a few different hit guys and you'll get a few different answers. So as it turns out, it IS subjective.🤦🏽♂️
@@DEUltra82 That definition is the optimal one, that Mike advocates for. Any other definition is not optimal, according to Mike, hence the different results one gets, from HIT training. 🙄
@ernienegrete5702 yeah, and mike also said that underhanded pulldowns are the single best biceps workout. He also bought into the colorado experiment and had to come out later and admit that it was bs. He also told people to eat 1 specific amount of each macro. He also said that people were making the best gains they'd ever made off of 1 set once every 10-14 days. My point is exactly this: mike mentzer wasn't god. His word is not fact. The things he swore by and suggested/urged/outright told other people was the only way or was the best way were all things that ARE SUBJECTIVE. Just like the original point about failure. Some people call failure as the way you described it, which is the way I've always thought it to be. Others will say it's complete failure to where a person keeps going after form has completely broken down. Some will define it as going further than that. And in my opinion, anyone who stops at just one set after going to your and my description of failure needs to stop training like a wimp.
I'm always surprised nobody ever refers to "Casey Comes Clean", a famous M&F article when discussing tbe C.E. That is where he stated that he did higher volume by himself. Another obvious point I never hear anyone say is that it isn't an experiment.
Casey's response to that article: This pretty much was a propaganda article. I might have written thirty percent of what was printed. There was not any sneaking around doing extra exercises or sets. We were working at such a high level of intensity no extra work was needed. We accomplished this study with great success and my sixty pounds was done exactly the way we described it. We knew before the experiment started that I would gain that much weight and nothing has been duplicated close to it since.
@@kupodio216 And Arnold made big gains in a short period of time leading up to the 75 Olympia. Overall, it isn't an experiment, but a case study in unique circumstances that are interesting, but mostly useless from a scientific perspective. Also, his weight was low after an accident and reaction to treatment, as is always stated by Darden. I know Casey later disputed the M&F article. I also know I read articles in Weider mags (and others) that had Casey doing around 40 sets/muscle (well after the Colorado Experiment). Obviously, I'm not exactly sure of all the specific details, but the "Casey Comes Clean" article was a huge deal at the time, but seems to be forgotten. It should be included in the story. It reminds me of all the Mentzer articles that gave much more credit to "The Weider Principles" than A.J. But I guess everybody kisses the boss's ass at times. And Casey was a great amateur, and had an ok pro career (I thought some placing were a little lower than he deserved, probably because of his history with Jones). The HIT background was more marketable as a trainer in the world of HIT so I'm not sure of the truth of conflicting things he said and/or is reported to have said.
@@kupodio216 Yeah the whole experiement is laidout in detail in Nautilus Bulletin #3 He gained 45.28 total pounds while losing 17.93 lbs of fat for a net gain of 63.21 pounds. All the athletes were monitored under strict conditions There were several othe athletes involved that also gained significant amounts of muscle. The entire workout was done almost in an exclusivley NEGATIVE only rep fashion with extreme weights. Every minute detail is broken down in Nautilus Bulletin #3
HIT is great and very efficient. I'm sure marketers used some hyperbole but that happens for almost everything. The guys on this show look like they spend as much time at the bar and pizza joint as they do at the gym. I'll take Arthur Jones any day of the week.
As full of shit as old Jones was, his company made some killer machines back in the day. I trained at a gym once very briefly that had the oldschool double shoulder machine where you could go straight from lateral raises into pressing (the pressing angle was more like a btn press and totally torched the shoulders). I've watched Blood and Guts with Dorian too many times to not want to try the chain pullover machine.
This is an important point. The machines focused upon training the negative - which was revolutionary at the time - and some of his machines were actually very effective. While Jones was interested in money and made some highly dubious claims for his equipment - and for HIT training (which was a useful partner for his equipment, as a point of difference from others at that time) - his influence on the development of modern equipment is still very apparent, and to be fair him, he was no more of a snake oil salesman than other fitness entrepreneurs of his day. The Weider brothers (who ran bodybuilding at that time) suggested that you could get like Arnold using just their mass gainers, a few vitamins and the "Weider Training Priciples" (which were long known principles that they tried to trademark in their own name). So, the industry was full of it.
It's very easy to come here in the comments and talk about how many muscles you gained doing heavy duty when you're protected by an anonymous profile without a photo. The truth is that most of them are guys who don't even look like they train, or fat guys with bloat arms and legs who think they're jacked.
Anyone who has trained knows you can only gain so much muscle naturally. And think you can put on 28 pounds in such a short time even if on gear that much weight with out most being water and fat would be much lighter . Say 10 pounds in that time would be great now add in peds and you may gain more but if it sounds to good to be true it most likely is.
Ok, this video means nothing…. We all know the gains came from rebuilding not new size. I lose and gain and lose 50 pounds of muscle year to year for decades. New is a slow gain regain is faster. I use this hiit method and Dorians methods to get my nephew from 140 pounds at 12 to 190 at 13. Cut down to 185 now with 20% body fat. Same % at the start. I grew 35 pounds of muscle this year after my wreck in Colorado. HIIT works if one right. Fact jack.
Mentzer was crazy, but he wasn't a moron - he knew the study on Viator was heavily manipulated and that Viator's claimed bodyfat loss, bodyfat percentage, lean muscle gain, etc. were lies (as a Mr Olympia competitor himself, he certainly knew that Viator was nowhere near 2.4% bodyfat). And that Viator was juiced to the gills and rebuilding pre-existing muscle mass after many drug-free months of illness, inactivity, and starving himself down to an artificially low bodyweight. Mentzer, like Jones and so many others involved in selling bodybuilding training systems (as well as equipment in Jones's case, and supplements in so many other cases) took great liberties with truth and fact (to put it nicely). He had to lie to sell his training system as being better than more traditional systems, and since his system was based upon Jones's system, and Jones had done such a masterful job of putting out the very misleading "Colorado experiment", Mentzer used that to his advantage. It is far more likely that Mentzer assumed that the people he told all of this to were dumb. Mentzer's actual training when he was a competitor was basically conventional training where he would pyramid up over 4 sets per exercise, and would claim that only the last set counted, because the first three were warmups. And he would typically do 4 exercises for most bodyparts, and follow training splits which were similar to what other pros were doing. He lied over and over about how he actually trained. Mentzer's claims about Viator were done to compare Viator's Colorado experiment results to Arnold's results for the 1980 Olympia, where of course Arnold was not bulking up the way Viator was in Colorado. Arnold was of course using drugs and training to try to quickly get back to his previous level of years earlier, but of course he was restricting calories in order to get contest level lean (actually lean, not the obvious fake "2.4% bodyfat" claimed for Viator in Colorado) while doing so. This of course isn't nearly as optimal as bulking after many months of illness, forced starvation, etc. the way Viator had done. And of course later Mentzer really went hog wild with the nonsense - preaching about training so very infrequently, etc.
hello alex, i always watch your videos you have great content im from argentina...dont take this to bad but sometines you do videos like this that tend to be kind of disrespectful and closeminded too,, obviously arthur jones was a great bussiness man and he was trying more to sell his machine more than everything you could say he was deceiving people but so do you if your gonna included some clips of mentzer talking about the colorado experiment put the hole thing in that clip that you intelligent cut in the that says those things he said how it was a fraud to a certain point he said that casey was underweight part because a car accident he had after wining mr america contest and on purpose for the experiment and he even said that arthur was saying he didnt take steroids but he obviously was and the part that you put about the body fat you put he was only telling how it supposed happen....he was doing a seminar and he bring the colorado experiment up only to make people see that training that way he was able to regain his weight in a short time frame with very few training sessions..and arnold that had to cut weight for a movie couldnt gain the weight for the 75 olympia that he had in 74 and he trained for 4 months because he was doing 6 day a week training 2 times a day so he was clear overtrained ..just to say hit not hiit was more effective not better more effective and for the majority of people that dont live from fitness that have a full time job it is...no hate your videos are awesome but this internal battle with a training style "you" dont like is frustating and the other way too like people like jay vincent to dogmatic but today the majority of bb pro in the olympia train in a high intensity manner you can say taking each set to failure and beyond one or two sets per exercise ( not per muscle ) more in a jordan peters way ...sorry for my english you have a great channel
I also read in an article that Casey was in a bad car accident before the experiment. And his muscles atrophied that much more because of it. So there is another reason why he gained so much.
I'm not going to comment on Arthur Jones or HIT overall, honestly the first time I encounter them. However, any scientific experiment that only uses a single subject, has no control group and then does do repeat studies is automatically flawed. You need to run such a test on dozens if not hundreds of people, over an extended period time, with a control group and then do repeated experiment in order to deduce how effective a given training will be for a wide group of people.
I think if anything, Yates showed that less is more. My problem is people saying he did like only one set, where you can watch him perform 3-4sets per exercise on frikkin RU-vid. His "less" was only less relative to guys like Dillett who had junk volume coming out of their ears, but still were huge because of gear and genetics. Mentzer tried to get him to join the one set cult and he refused to as he knew it didn't work
When yates and mentzer say one set, they mean warmups + one set to failure. Yates himself is all over youtube explaining that to people yet some like you still can't let go the idea of one set being literally picking up a dumbbell only one time.
He was doing warmup sets. Just because those sets look heavy to you and me does not mean that they were heavy to Yates. Yates only did one 'working' set to failure.
Ive been doing HIT training for about 4 months now. Ive had reslly good progress after being plateaued eith my 5 day a week 1-2 hour per session high volume program. I think HIT works for me because i just dont sleep much and i am very active... so i dont think i was able to recover from my high volume program. I beleive you can make progress using any training style.... as long as you are consistent and implement progressive overload. Anyway, i still think Mike Mentzer was ahead of his time and a very intelligent man who made a lot of sense when talking about HIT .
Every bodybuilder was on gear. So it would make sense that insane volume training would yield results since steroids help with recovery time. And those who trust results of certain routines from geared olympians should just try their own or look to people who aren't stackmaxxing. HIT seems to help people without gear, and turning down volume in general compared to bodybuilders in the industry is smart for those who dont stack
We'll HIT has been shown to work in more recent studies on training to failure for 1 or more sets. The average rate of growth was less than with more volume but not that much less. Generally, it seems getting to a sufficient RIR seems to be the relevant part and most people benefit from more volume than prescribed in HIT but there are a few outliers here and there that can always make for case studies against what works well for most people.
You can't reduce the efficacy of a single variable to a 'better/worse' value judgment from a handful of studies. There are infinite number of ways to approach HIT (there's literally no agreement between Jones, Mentzer, Dorian or Baye about the best way to do it) and general 'volume' (doing anything more than one or two sets to failure) comprises, like, all of olympic lifting, powerlifting, bodybuilding and sports in general. The different approaches you could implement may be generally better or worse, or they may be better/worse according to some specific need of an individual. Research can't get within 100 miles of that resolution. Long story short, any PhD in Exercise Science will tell you that you can't rely on studies to inform training decisions. Trial and error for the individual is exponentially more important.
@@AlexanderBromley This right here is super important. So many people are like "here is one (1) new study, so lets all change our training now." Individuals need to try things out for themselves and see what works for them, rather than dogmatically stick to one system or another.
In terms of calories needed, IF he burned the 17 lbs of fat that they say he burned, then that’s another 59,500 calories for energy on top of his intake. It still isn’t possible because there’s no way he built that much muscle and lost that much fat, but I think technically the energy expenditure is there if you include the fat burn.
Despite all the anecdotes in the comments, it's been proven times and times again, and unlike what Mentzer is claiming, that the main driver of hypertrophy is volume rather than intensity.
I always had the best gains with longer high volume workouts. It seemed like the people who were always talking about hitting short intense workouts 45 minutes or less never really got those gains. I had at least 5 different people in college ask to workout with me and by the time we hit about an 1hr 15min they’d start gassing out and always bring up 30-45 minute workouts they heard about from random RU-vid gurus and stuff. I can see how those can be appealing to people who are new to the gym and just need some point to get started, but I always got better pumps and gains with high volume and adequate rest between sets rather than all those supersets and minimal exercises. Their lack of results could also be they didn’t know what the fuck they were doing though, but based off of my single anecdote I’m a believer in higher volume. Also I’m really glad you’re calling out the Colorado experiment. I remember when I started getting really serious about lifting around 8 years ago I used to see RU-vid fitness channels hype it up like some kind of magic. They really were able to fool generations of people into thinking there was some simple drug free key to loosing fat while putting on pounds of muscle.
Even gaining 2.8 pounds in 28 days is exceptional as this would amount in gaining over 33 pounds a year if done on a monthly basis,acording to m.mentzer gaining 10 pounds a year is ok and does Mean 50 pounds in t Years gained MASS. I am curently testing the hit method for over 3 weeks and it does Feel to work at present after 2 months of training daily for short Times up to 5 active Mins
Glad you stated explicitly that this video wasn't about HIT and BB...b/c it definitely is used by a lot of people with success (and Mike's methods specifically are making a big following online recently especially on Tik Tok for some reason)
HIT is fine as a training approach, the culture around it has lost its mind. Whatever one would consider a source of cutting edge training information.... Tik Tok is the opposite. A 50 year old system is being dredged up because, for many, where you look for training is like what music you listen to. And under-dog, dark-horse counter-culture is always in style. Mentzer is a cautionary tale of bodybuilding at best and he's being idolized because he hated 'the man', wore glasses and spoke well.
@@AlexanderBromley I'm pretty sure 1 set was the norm before 50 years ago though it may not have been called "HIT," while multiple sets were only introduced or popularized at that time 50 years ago. You have to understand that humans and animals conserve energy and doing multiple sets is unwise.
@@oscarl.3563 no that is absolutely not the case. The history of barbell training is in circus strongman training and olympic lifting, where a workman like approach was taken that involved multiple sets for practice and often multiple sessions throught the day. Eugene Sandow recommended 2-3 sets of 10-15 over several exercises in the 1800s. Weiders principles were published in 1950, but Weider had been training since the 1930s. Joe didn't invent this stuff, it was based on observations of training culture. You can find archives of every fitness magazine since Physical Culture was first published in 1899 to see what was the norm and how training has evolved. "One set is all you need" is completely the brain child of Arthur Jones and the people he influenced.
@@AlexanderBromleyeven if Arthur is a fraud…I’d imagine the one set thing is a more complicated question than it may seem, right? I could definitely see where “one working set” will be performed VERY differently between individuals
@@Dakotastx Unable to perform a perfect rep, with strict form, because of muscular failure, is not complicated. It's also the same for everyone unless, *not actually* taken to failure and/or cheating, is involved. 🤦🏽♂️
I got to listen to this. I haven’t yet just saw the notification. But this experiment was a testament to muscle maturity more than it was HITT in my opinion.
#JohnHeart aka "Mr American Heart" is a Natural Bodybuilding Champion. Trained only HIT from Mike Mentzer. For his entire career. He's a coach and in Amazing shape and Health.
Personally, i think the colorado experiment and Hit ( heavy duty) training should be in different categories. Heavy duty training has evolved over the years same as volume training. Colorado might of tarnished some reputation of high intensity, but with volume..no one is at the gym doing Sandow 5 pound light dumbell workout, or 4 hour sessions like the silver and golden era. High intensity (heavy duty) has alot of merit, but has to be labelled seperately from Arthur Jones. Aaron baker, Dorian Yates, Mark dugdale, I think shown potential in the principles of Hit training.
My wife does author jones 3 day split 2 times a month and lost over 20 lbs and I been doing mikes mentzers training / diet and recovery and went from 180-230 of lean muscle in 9 months I’m not doing gear I legit push myself and saw great results and doing it correct not using massive amounts of weights and I have all my starting photos to now and if you do the work it’ll work if you half ass it you’ll get shitty results the people who complain are the ones who truly don’t try it and wanna put forth real efforts and they want instant results which don’t happen over night this is bodybuilding it takes time and they don’t actually understand it cause they don’t wanna cause they are scared of change and like going to the gym as a social rituals I have read mikes books and all make sense
The problem with critics of HIT is that they never tried it. People look like shit after abusing steroids for years and then talk shit about Mentzer. Look what Mentzer built 50 years ago, if he competed today he would be absolutely ridiculous! No one will remember the fat boy hater. Mentzer will remain a bronze era legend long after these clowns are gone.
I hate to break it to you, but drugs today aren't different from back then; but the genetic talent pool is. Mike gave up lifting at 28 years old because he realized he did all he could do. Developed a meth habit and had young bodybuilders live with him to pay his rent while he wrote shitty books and cried about Arnold. Just as well because if he stuck around, Lee Haney and Dorian would have trounced him through the 80s and he would be remembered the same. The entirety of pro bodybuildling culture has had 50 years to discover the magic of doing less work and they've all said, "no fucking thanks, I like winning". The only thing propping HIT up are the people like Mike, Dorian, Jones, Leistner, etc. who lie aggressively about how they train and the results they get.
If your opening argument about why someone's theory about building muscle is that he lived a privilege life, and come from a rich family, No scientific argument. Don't bother
Yes, I talked about Arthurs life. That wasn't the argument, we call that context. I also had an advertisement in the middle. That wasn't part of the argument either.
not most likely, WAS on gear, if I recall he was injured the prior season and had to recover and lost a bunch of muscle and he regained all of it back on full blast to get back to bodybuilding shape
I trained with weights in the 1960-70s. There was no one to train me so I learned about the so called proper way to train from books and magazines. The standard in those days was to train 3 days a week and as you improved add weights to the bar. The convention was to use the same weights in each workout and increase them as you got stronger. Eventually I hit the top of the parabola and simply could not improve. I tried training harder but simply got worse and the weights went backwards. In around 1971 or 72 I read an article in the back of Strength and Health about how the Soviet weightlifting team trained. The article was not particularly noticeable because it was at the back of the magazine and broken up over a few pages without photographs. The system they used was to train to maximum performance once a week only with the other days being 50 per cent and 75 per cent and repeat the same next week. I redesigned my workouts starting with the 100 per cent exercises first, followed by the 75 per centers and then the 50 per centers. This was cycled over the week with Heavy Squats one day and Heavy Bench Presses the next and so on. The system worked with immediate improvement, and it worked for everyone I taught it to. I never trained to failure but to a max. of three reps working up to five and then increasing the weight. So the question I ask is "did Arthur Jones invent this first or did he hear about the system from the Soviets who had been using it for some time". P.S. I was only interested in their system not their communist lifestyle.
It took me about 10 years too long to figure this out. I started lifting in the early 90's as a 110lb lanky kid. Bench was always a struggle to gain anything on and when I got stuck I would always transition to low reps for strength and thought I had to go to and past failure all the time on everything. It worked to some degree and I thought that was just the way it was. One day me and my buddy decided to switch it up just for the heck of it, like we all do and start with a weight we could do 25 times and add weight the next workout and try again the next week. When you fail to get the reps drop 5 and start doing sets of 20 the next time. When you fail again go to 15, fail again go to 10 then just drop 1 rep every time you fail. I can't remember but it took about 4 months and by the time I got down to 5 reps I was doing my previous max for 5. Maybe it was a little bit of a mental thing but I felt like I had achieved more than a year's worth of progress in that time. That's when I figured out i've got to figure out what works for me and I still program all my lifts with that basic principal in mind, most of the time.
