Are You Training Hard Enough?

In a post I wrote a while back about the ten biggest bodybuilding mistakes, I listed not training hard enough as the number one mistake. How hard is enough, though?

To stimulate increases in strength and size it is minimally necessary to 1. work your muscles harder than they are accustomed to, which means 2. always attempting to improve your formlift more weight or perform more repetitions on each exercise than you did before. These are the two most fundamental principles of building muscular strength and size: overload and progression. If these two things are not the primary focus of your training, nothing else you do is going to make any difference.

To stimulate the greatest possible increases in strength and size it is necessary to work as hard as possible. Do not make the common mistake of confusing doing more exercise for working harder. Working harder means putting more effort into each exercise, and if your level of effort is high enough you will neither need nor be capable of performing a large volume of work.

To work as hard as possible simply means;

  1. doing as many repetitions as you are physically capable of
  2. in good form
  3. with an adequately heavy weight

Physical Versus Psychological Limits

Most people quit an exercise for various psychological reasons long before they’ve reached their true physical limits. Beginners and others unaccustomed to training at a very high level of intensity often mistake a moderate level of fatigue for muscle failure, quitting when the exercise starts to get hard rather than when more reps become impossible. Many simply quit when the exercise becomes too uncomfortable for them, lacking the necessary mental toughness to push through the discomfort of burning muscles, a rapidly pounding heart and being out of breath. Some quit when an exercise becomes harder because they fear they will injure themselves.

The gap between psychological and physical limits narrows and the tolerance for muscular burning and exertional discomfort improves for most people after they’ve been training for a while, but even advanced trainees may quit far short of a true all-out effort if they’ve never experienced it. Even many advanced trainees overestimate how intensely they actually train and underestimate the level of effort they are capable of. A good solution for this is to work out with a trainer or partner that knows how to motivate you to go all-out. The judicious application of high intensity training techniques like forced reps and negatives can also help you develop the ability to push yourself harder during training.

If you quit an exercise when it gets harder due to fear of injury, consider it is not the amount of weight or how hard you are working but the integrity of your form that determines your risk of injury. As long as you maintain reasonably good form and use a competent and attentive spotter or the appropriate safety equipment when necessary there is no reason to fear injury.

Also consider no matter how fatigued you become, you are always much stronger holding or lowering a weight than you are lifting it. As long as you don’t just let go, you will not drop a weight on yourself.

Good Form

The goal of an exercise is not to make a weight go up and down. Lifting and lowering a weight is just a means to accomplish the real goal, which is to work the targeted muscles intensely enough to stimulate strength and size increases. To accomplish this you need to maintain the proper body position and move along the correct path over the correct range of motion to maintain a high level of tension on the target muscles while avoiding positions which may result in other tissues being exposed to potentially harmful levels of force.

As an exercise becomes harder do not significantly alter your body position or path or range of movement or attempt to yank, jerk or otherwise quickly move the weight to make it easier to lift. If you do, the work is either shifted away from the target muscles towards other muscles or leverage is changed reducing tension, and you are no longer accomplishing the real goal, or you increase the risk of injury due to the sudden, uncontrolled increase in force resulting from rapid acceleration. It is neither necessary nor beneficial and potentially dangerous to attempt to continue beyond the point where can not lift the weight in correct form by cheating.

Maintain your focus on the real goal – high intensity muscular work – and don’t sacrifice form and risk injury for the sake of a few more less productive reps. How you lift the weight is far more important than how many times.

How Heavy?

The weight should be at least heavy enough to be moderately hard to lift right from the start. It should not be so heavy, however, that you are unable to perform at least a few repetitions in good form.

Assuming a moderate movement speed, within reason repetition range doesn’t appear to make as much of a difference in muscular strength and size increases as the effort put into an exercise. Some people will find they do better with or prefer slightly higher or lower reps, however most people will get good results with any reasonable range from as low as three to as high as twenty, as long as they are working as hard and progressively.

I recommend a middle range of 6 to 10 repetitions as a starting point for most trainees and most exercises. A higher rep range may be more appropriate for beginners when learning a new exercise, and lower rep ranges would be necessary when using very slow repetition methods.

The High Intensity Mindset

High intensity training is as much a test of mental toughness as it is of physical strength, and your mindset going into the workout has a big impact on how hard you’ll be able to train. I have found the following to be effective in establishing the proper mindset for going all-out during your workouts.

Commitment

Although you may enjoy the mental and physical challenge of a hard workout, a workout is not an end in itself, but a means to accomplishing specific goals. Keeping your goals in mind will help you stay motivated. Think about how important those goals are to you and make a commitment to yourself to give your best effort, to not have any doubts after the workout as to whether you could have gotten another rep on an exercise or worked even just a little harder.

Focus

To put a 100% physical effort into an exercise you have to focus 100% of your mind on it. To prevent your mind from wandering or the things going on around you from distracting you during your workout, take a few minutes before you start to clear your head and get focused. Sit down, close your eyes and focus only your breathing until you are able to block everything else out and your mind is not wandering. Then take a few minutes to visualize yourself performing each of the exercises in your workout perfectly, easily beating your previous weight or reps on all of them. Finally, take a brief moment to think about your goals, your motivation for training.

Before each exercise, take a few seconds to close your eyes and regain your focus if you start to feel distracted.

Putting “Pain” in Perspective

Intense burning in the muscles, a rapid heart rate and labored breathing are normal sensations resulting from high intensity muscular work, and not real pain or an indication of physical harm. These sensations are not a cause for concern. What they do indicate is that you have reached the most productive part of the exercise.

When you begin to experience these sensations do not assume you are approaching your physical limits or the end of the exercise. Remind yourself the sensations are temporary and harmless, and the real exercise is just beginning. The burn in your muscles is your cue to work even harder, and the more they burn the harder you will work. Again, think about your goals and remind yourself they are worth working through the temporary and harmless discomfort.

Join the discussion or ask questions about this post in the HIT List forum

Like it? Share it!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Gordon Mar 8, 2010 @ 16:03

    Doesn’t affect me personally but you may want to be made aware of a study that strongly indicated that old people unaccustomed to heavy exercise may develop scar tissue within their muscles by training at very high intensities.

    Now, I just tried my honest best to dig that study up again (saw it weeks ago online), but I couldn’t – hopefully you will come across it at some point. It has a quite alarming photograph of a quadriceps biopsy in cross-section showing great white masses among the pink fibre-ends, alongside a photo of a healthy-looking biopsy from a young man who was exposed to the same training. The subjects were all initially atrophied from hospital bed-rest.

    I am glad to hear someone de-emphasize the importance of a particular rep-range. I used to subscribe to the view that low reps and very heavy loads are essential to build up strength and mass (as opposed to endurance) until I learned of the training methods of the Indian wrestler ‘The Great Gama’ – he became an absolute tank by doing thousands of push-ups and bodyweight squats – his ‘progression’ was all about just doing it until he can’t do it any more, every time, with the same load. This striking example stuck in my mind until I began to notice other, similar examples. Progression is definitely king and makes the most intuitive sense, biologically.

    • Drew Baye Mar 8, 2010 @ 21:47

      Gordon,

      Thanks for the heads up. If you remember where it was published or find a link to the study please let me know.

  • Michael Allen Mar 10, 2010 @ 5:43

    Drew — this is a very interesting and well written analysis of the problems and the strategies. Thanks.

  • Karthik Mar 15, 2010 @ 13:01

    Hey Drew! Good to see you back. The number one mistake most people do is not train hard enough and emphasize on the basic lifts. All they worry is about the latest supplements and the latest exercise equipment. U hit the nail on the head Drew.

    Karthik

  • Steven Turner Mar 17, 2010 @ 4:43

    Hi Drew,

    I am also glad your back – any word “progression” on your book. I find that many people don’t know what is meant by “hard work” until you show them. I always show them the Arthur Jones 1 set X 10 reps bicep curl most quickly understand what is meant by hard work. But for many even once they are shown what you mean by hard work they quickly revert back to there sloppy training.

    On Karthik’s comments, “all they worry is about”
    A newspapaer article (Sydney Australia) that I have just read on HGH/Steroids stated “It’s available all over the place” he said. “You can ask in a pub (hotel) and you’ll probably get someone carrying steroids or HGH, just like they might have cocaine or ectasy.”

    From the above comments on HGH and steroids so much for all the “Gym Science”.

    I read where someone said that Arthur Jones appeals to ones intelligence I would say that this also the same for Drew Baye.

    • Drew Baye Mar 17, 2010 @ 11:45

      Steven,

      Thanks, book is close to finished. Still have a few things to write and some editing to do, but not much else.

      When I was in college I worked at a Gold’s Gym in Green Bay (they’re now Titletown Fitness) where all the personal trainers did high intensity training. A lot of the bodybuilders at the gym thought the workouts we did looked easy, probably because we instructed our clients not to grunt, scream, yell, or engage in any of the other histrionics most associate with hard training. Whenever we convinced one of them to let us put them through a workout they realized they were anything but easy. Ironically, many of them went back to their old routines afterwards and when asked why, the typical response was our workouts were too hard.

  • MikeG Mar 21, 2010 @ 23:25

    Hey drew Great blog
    I was wondering whats wrong with (if anything) 1-3 rep ranges assuming your progressing with the weight. I noticed I increase my lifts steadily with great form, but I usually end up doing 1-5 reps, sometimes 2-3 reps (1 set) Why isnt this ideal?

    • Drew Baye Mar 25, 2010 @ 23:20

      Mike,

      This is a conservative range, based on both my experience as a trainer and the research I’ve read. I prefer keeping the reps a little higher because when using a heavy enough weight to achieve failure in that rep range at typical repetition speeds many people have difficulty maintaining proper form, and progress tends to be more difficult. Very low rep ranges may be appropriate for people using very slow repetition speeds, however.

  • Chris Mar 25, 2010 @ 17:07

    I’ve been a HITter for close to 10 years now and it pleases me to find something in this post that I never considered. I really like your take on “focus.” That is an aspect of my training I will definitely work on.

  • MikeG Mar 26, 2010 @ 23:20

    Thanks alot for responding Drew- your input is much appreciated!
    my question was in regard to dead lifts in particular, and I cant do the reps quickly even if I wanted, ( at least the positive) and I do the negative very slowly for 2-5 reps. My form is good I feel, and I never had any problems with back pain or anything. I find it easier to go to “complete failure” with lower reps with heavier weight, because it takes the mental aspect out of the game a little more, my body gives out before I can overthink it. As well as it is easier to find a 2-5 rep max than a weight that makes you fail at 10 reps. I will change it if it absolutely necessary, but Im looking for any excuse to keep this rep range because it seems more doable. Any input on this?

  • craig Mar 31, 2010 @ 15:17

    When suggesting 7-10 reps, are you talking 6 seconds (3/3) for each rep (longer, shorter)?

    • Drew Baye Mar 31, 2010 @ 16:54

      Craig,

      I consider 3/3 to be a reasonable speed for most people during most exercises. It is adequately slow for most people to maintain proper positioning and control of body movement and to be able to focus on the muscles they’re working. At an average of six seconds per rep, this puts a 7 to 10 rep set in the 40 to 60 second range. If someone were to perform slower reps, I would recommend changing the range so they would start in that time frame, eg. 4 to 6 reps at a 5/5 cadence or only 2 to 3 reps if performing SuperSlow or similar.

  • Glenn Magee Apr 8, 2010 @ 22:23

    Well written article. We all forget sometimes that it is about progressive resistance, and that one has to strive and fight for every extra rep or pound.

  • Kelly Fehrenbach Apr 9, 2010 @ 18:20

    Just getting started and have been reading a lot about high intensity strength training. One question. I have bad knees (extreme osteoarthritis and two ACL reconstructions from years ago) and a bad disk in the lower back…so I have been swimming (strong swimmer) + a circuit training routine (2×12 reps, 2-3 days a week). Really just started 4 months ago, and have had reasonable results so far with both weight loss and strenth, but wanted to try HIT….here is the question. I really enjoy the swimming element (good for my joints while maintaining activity)…is there anything counterproductive in doing 1-2 HIT sessions a week but also mid level intensity/mid volume (30-40 minutes) of swimming several times a week?

    • Drew Baye Apr 10, 2010 @ 15:52

      Kelly,

      I don’t believe this would be counterproductive. How much exercise a person can handle and recover from within some time frame varies between individuals though, so make sure to keep accurate records of your workouts and adjust your volume and frequency if needed.

  • Gordon Apr 10, 2010 @ 16:58
  • Wythe Apr 30, 2010 @ 16:29

    Drew, for advanced trainers, do you recommend a week’s rest in between bodypart training?..That is, one half the body on say, Mon. and the other half on Thurs.

    • Drew Baye Apr 30, 2010 @ 17:14

      Wythe,

      The optimal frequency varies considerably between trainees, and can even vary between body parts for a particular person. Some people may only require a day or two of rest between workouts for some muscle groups, a week or more for others, and the total time necessary between workouts can vary significantly between individuals. I don’t like giving specific recommendations with regards to volume or frequency because of this variation. Determining optimal frequency requires keeping accurate records and making adjustments based on evaluation of progress over time. If a particular muscle group is not progressing as well as others, it might require more recovery time.

  • Dominick Apr 30, 2010 @ 16:39

    You are exactly right Drew.

  • Gillian May 11, 2010 @ 18:41

    Hi Drew,

    I find especially for women, there is a real push to work low-moderate intensity with lots of reps, which I have never liked. Results from HIT is exactly the same for women as it is for men isn’t it? – as it is always relevant how hard you train to your individual strength

    • Drew Baye May 11, 2010 @ 19:49

      Gillian,

      Women will get much better results with high intensity strength training than doing workouts of high-repetition, lower-intensity sets.

  • craig May 19, 2010 @ 18:00

    Is rep range really that important? Does it make a difference whether you’re doing 7-10 reps or 12-15 reps as long as you’re going to failure?

    • Drew Baye May 20, 2010 @ 22:15

      Any reasonable rep range will produce good results, but some people will have better results with slighly higher or lower reps, depending on various factors.

  • Anthony Fletcher May 28, 2010 @ 17:19

    Hey Drew,
    Your advise is very positive and inspiring, thankyou very much.

    Anthony
    High Intensity
    Australia

  • Sheri Aug 5, 2010 @ 12:37

    Great article! I love the last paragraph and am going to use your perspective! It’s all a mental game!!

  • Drew Baye Aug 14, 2010 @ 13:26

    @ Gordon

    Gordon, with regards to Gama’s training I should point out genetics probably played a much bigger role in his massive size than his specific training regimen.

    It is a common mistake to assume one can duplicate the success of someone else by following their approach while failing to consider unique traits or circumstances which may have contributed to that success – in this case genetics. Gama would probably have been just as large or larger using a variety of other methods.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 13:44

    @ Drew Baye
    I dunno Drew, maybe you’re just trading my assumption for your own.

    HIT people, like many with a paradigm to sell, seem to related it to what they think makes sense evolution-wise, but surely it makes no sense for evolution to dictate such specific means of growth. If someone does a colossal amount of low-load exercise every day he will need an increase in muscle-mass to deal with it.

    A man who can lift 50kgs 100 times will have a greater 1RM than a man who can lift 50kgs 5 times.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:00
  • Drew Baye Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:08

    @ G

    Deductions from evolution are a part of it, but most of what I write is based on what has worked for me and my clients over the past two decades and what I’ve learned from others who’ve been doing it as long or longer.

    Large amounts of daily, low-load exercise will not produce the same type of adaptations as less frequent, high-load exercise. The body produces adaptations that are specific to the demands placed on it.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:18

    @ Drew Baye
    I don’t work out daily and don’t think it makes sense on the face of it – I prefer the HIT way because I want to minimize time and hassle. But I don’t think empirical evidence favours the idea that it’s necessarily the only way for one to reach maximum potential. Jim Morris is ancient (72, I think?) and works out every day – he’s freakishly huge and strong for an old person. You can’t just say ‘he must be a genetic freak – this wouldn’t work with you’. It’s not like every HIT person gets huge anyway.

    Why not just say ‘yes there are different ways up the mountain, and I like this one best because of XYZ’? The research that Bass article is based on shows pretty clearly thaT yeah, while there were small specific endurance/strength adaptations, for the most part size and strength was determined by failure, not load. I should also point out that Bass is not a high volume/frequency person – he tends more to HIT, probably, I think, for the same reasons as me.

    Anyway, what’s wrong with having a lot of muscular endurance. Wouldn’t surprise me if one day research comes out saying it’s a great guard against heart-attacks; who knows – I really don’t believe in fussing and designing to that extent.

  • Drew Baye Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:33

    @ G

    I’ve read Carpinelli’s paper on this, and although it isn’t necessary to lift extremely heavy, there is a definite relationship between tension on the muscle and the degree of growth stimulated (as opposed to metabolic adaptations). The weight has to be at least heavy enough for this purpose, and for most people that is going to put them in a range where they’re doing less than 90 seconds of work, or less than 15 continuous repetitions at a moderate cadence (approx 3/3). More reps can be performed with a heavy weight with rest pause, but there’s still a limit on how many you can do with a weight that is heavy enough to be effective.

  • Drew Baye Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:39

    @ G

    If a person want to reach their maximum potential they need to train hard and they need to do an appropriate amount of work and allow appropriate recovery time to avoid overtraining – this is HIT. The problem is, most people overestimate the amount of exercise they can do and how often they can do it without overtraining.

    There is nothing wrong with training for muscular endurance, but please re-read the first part of the article – this is a follow up to The Ten Biggest Bodybuilding Mistakes. If someone is more concerned with general muscular endurance than size they should use a higher repetition range.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:41

    @ Drew Baye
    So Gama was some kind of freak of nature? Even though he comes from an ancient tradition of wrestlers with a working heavyweight division who all do the same kind of regime? I don’t buy it.

    Course, it could be that his sparring pracice meant that he was getting a combined stimulus: presumably he was intermittently straining near full output when locked with opponents. For that and other reasons it’s not the best anecdotal evidence.

    I still think though – metabolic adaptations aren’t going to enable anyone to work up to 200 pushups. They will have to put on a lot of muscle to get there. Ever hear of the British criminal known as ‘Charles Bronson’? He was a lifer who was fanatical about pushups; eschewed weights; got at least as big as Gama. There are other examples, if you don’t want to filter them all out and explain them away.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:45

    @ Drew Baye
    I don’t need to reread it Drew, I don’t see what you think I’ve misunderstood. Going by what Carpinelli found, we’re talking about hair-splitting differences between cultivating strength vs endurance; rep-range was found to have a trivial influence.

    I don’t care to be Arnie-big even if I could be, but I’m not aiming to be like a marathon-runner either. But if we’re talking about tiny strength/endurance bias, well, I don’t care much – I’ll do what I feel like; what suits me.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 14:56

    Here’s a P.S. :

    My father is ilke a monster powerlifter and he owes it all to physical labour, most of which would have been all-day, sometimes on conseutive days, and usually nowhere near his 1RM.

    I used to train the standard way, with many reps and set, 4 days per week, and made slow, steady progress.

    After that I deconditioned back to sedentary levels for several years. Now my regime is so minimalist it resembles an advanced trainee’s ‘maintenance’ workout: I am making about the same slow, steady progress.

    Different ways, you get there in the end – unless you’re a professional athlete, why worry about it overmuch? I’ve already just about done all I really needed to do; the rest is a bonus, unless I join the army or something.

  • Drew Baye Aug 14, 2010 @ 16:54

    @ G

    That many heavyweights followed a similar program does not mean the program was responsible for their size, that they would not have been as big whether they did nothing at all, or if the results were due to the training that they could not have achieved the same or better results more quickly and with less time invested by another method.

    I’ve never heard of the criminal you mentioned, but anecdotes aren’t worth much. If a person wishes to become as big and strong as possible they need to gear their training towards strength. While research shows some people do better with lower, some moderate and some higher reps for strength, most of this involves rep ranges and cadences that top out at around 90 seconds or so. The average seem to be around 60.

    Years ago I found my results with SuperSlow training had been worse than when I was previously doing Mike Mentzer’s “Heavy Duty” variation of high intensity training. Examining the differences other than speed what stood out most was the set duration, or time under load (TUL).

    When doing Heavy Duty I typically performed 5 to 8 reps per exercise at a moderately slow pace. About 6 to 8 seconds per rep, including a pause in the contracted position, with the high end of the TUL right around 60 seconds.

    When doing SuperSlow I was doing between 4 and 8 reps per exercise at a very slow pace, about 20 seconds per rep with very slow turnarounds. My TULs averaged between 1:20 and 2:40.

    I decided to cut my rep range down to only 2 to 3 reps, about 40 to 60 seconds TUL and my results instantly improved. I wrote about and spoke with others about it, and started receiving a large amount of positive feedback from others doing SuperSlow who experienced similar improvement when reducing their TUL.

    I started doing the same with clients with similar results.

    There is definitely a broad range of rep ranges or set durations that will work, but there is a more limited range that will work well, and an even more limited range that is optimal for any individual. In general, though, if you want the best possible strength and size increases you need to be lifting at least moderately heavy weights – not doing dozens or hundreds of reps with light weights.

    While it is still certainly possible to do a LOT of reps in this shorter time frame, this would require performing reps quickly enough they would be very sloppy and more likely to produce an injury than a lower number of reps performed under strict control for an equal duration.

  • G Aug 14, 2010 @ 22:39

    @ Drew Baye
    But Drew, regarding your first paragraph there, as I said already, not all HIT people are big. I could just as easily say that the successful HIT people like yourself are genetic freaks.

    I think that HIT is the best way for most people but it is manifestly not the only way. Yeah, some people overtrain and are driving with the brakes on, sure, but some seem to get away with it.

    What was my original point again..?

    “I am glad to hear someone de-emphasize the importance of a particular rep-range. I used to subscribe to the view that low reps and very heavy loads are essential to build up strength and mass (as opposed to endurance) until I learned of the training methods of the Indian wrestler ‘The Great Gama’ – he became an absolute tank by doing thousands of push-ups and bodyweight squats – his ‘progression’ was all about just doing it until he can’t do it any more, every time, with the same load. This striking example stuck in my mind until I began to notice other, similar examples. Progression is definitely king and makes the most intuitive sense, biologically.”

    Oh yeah – progression is king. I don’t think this is all that contendable. If you climb up a mountain every day until your calves are tired you will get big calves – hundreds of reps. Examples are endless. There are quicker ways – yeah, not arguing with you about that.

  • Glenn Magee Aug 15, 2010 @ 6:15

    Maybe G you are asking the wrong questions. Everyone who trains has met someone who can follow any haphazard routine and still make good progress. They have great genetics suited to bodybuilding or weightlifting. The right question is, would they have progressed faster and further using a HIT routine?
    As you have stated HIT is a great timesaver but that isn’t the primary reason for using this system. If I thought volume training was valid then I’d hit the gym everyday.

  • G Aug 17, 2010 @ 21:51
  • Drew Baye Aug 17, 2010 @ 22:15

    Gordon,

    Any system that involves some degree of overload and progression and a reasonable volume and frequency of work will produce some strength improvements. Optimal strength and size increases, however, require working with relatively heavy weights.

    A major factor in growth stimulation is the tension on a muscle. The reason methods like rest-pause and variations of negative training (negative only, negative accentuated, forced negatives, etc.) tend to produce faster increases in muscular strength and size is because they make it possible to train with higher loads than can be used for continuous sets.

    If you like training with lower weight and high reps and if muscle mass isn’t your primary concern, that’s fine. However, for those whose goal is to maximize their muscular strength and size heavier training loads will get them better results, faster.

  • Glenn Magee Aug 17, 2010 @ 22:30

    I am looking at photos of The Great Gama and I can’t see any great development. I’m sure the guy was strong but not by today’s standards.

  • G Aug 18, 2010 @ 7:22

    I hope that some sliver of a more general and important point is getting through here: HIT people, like everyone else, say that everyone else is dogmatic and that only they follow the right path – which is a dogmatic attitude. That second study I’ve just cited shows people getting about the same growth by lifting 30% 1RM for more than 24 reps.

    If you find yourself reflexively downplaying the success of others using ‘rival’ methods, it’s a problem. Drew, high reps are not just for people not looking for maximal muscle-mass; that’s not what the science says.

    (The McMaster study in full: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012033 )

    I find it more important to promote good honest thinking than to promote my own personal style of training. I do not think that ‘which is the best method’ is a settled question, so no one has legitimate grounds to be so self-asertive. I think people should embrace the fact that the body is (happily, sensibly) adapted to produce a hypertrophic response to a fairly wide variety of stimulus, and that the right question to ask is ‘what doesn’t work?’ At this time I would suggest that what doesn’t work is overtraining, not getting at least close to failure, and anything that is injurious or produces a hazardous muscle-imbalance.

    May HIT people seem to also be Paleo people… well, how many cavemen had an exercise regime of lifting 90% 1RM to failure once per week? Now consider how many had to regularly climb a hillside, build a large structure out of thousands of rocks, or pound tubers into flour – these are the kinds of activities hunter-gatherers engage in today.

    • Drew Baye Aug 18, 2010 @ 10:14

      This is just one short study with only 15 people using post-exercise muscle protein synthesis instead of actual long-term measurements of strength and size increases. It is hardly conclusive, especially considering the large amount of research and empirical evidence supporting the use of heavier loads when training for strength and size.

      While it is possible to get good results training with a variety of repetition ranges as long as training is intense and progressive, the majority of people will experience much better strength and size increases using heavier loads and keeping their rep ranges under 15 at moderate speeds (under around 90 seconds, TUL).

      Merriam-Webster defines dogmatism as,

      1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
      2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

      My confidence in the information here is neither unwarranted or based on insufficiently examined premises. I’m presenting what I have found to work best for me and the people I’ve trained over the past two decades and what I’ve learned from other experienced and knowledgeable trainers and experts.

      As for the question of which is the best method, it is important to distinguish between set programs and flexible, principle-based systems of training. There is tremendous individual variability in response to exercise so no single program will be optimal for everyone. The basic principles, however, are universal, and a system based on applying those principles in accordance with individual response to exercise is objectively better than a program that does not take this variability into account.

      The best method is the one based on correct application of the correct principles for each individual, based on their current condition, goals, etc., which is exactly what high intensity training is.

      While some HIT trainers recommend very specific programs, most I know use a flexible, principle-based approach rather than a fixed set of routines (although some may use fixed routines or workout templates as starting points from which they make changes based on individual response).

      The difference between a structured exercise routines and the random and varied physical demands the environment imposed on our Paleolithic ancestors is a structured routine allows the physical demand to be applied in a safe, efficient and measurable manner. Your muscles don’t know the difference between the demands of using a Nautilus machine or barbell and having to push, pull or carry a heavy rock or log or animal carcass. The principles are the same, the tools make the application of the principles safer and more efficient.

  • G Aug 18, 2010 @ 10:33

    I’ve somewhat lost sight of the point of contention but that seems like a good answer.

    I was partly also addressing my point to Glenn Magee, whose rebuttals were: 1) anyone who has results on a different programme must have ‘good genetics’ 2) The Great Gama was actually not that big (unlike, presumably, HIT people who are all like Arnie). See, I’ve read quite a lot about HIT on different websites over the last year or so, and I guess I’ve had this slow-building sense of frustration with certain pervasive attitudes and weird philosophies I keep picking up from bodybuilders. They seem to all be in different camps, slagging each other off – to an outsider it seems silly. Actually, I used to have a rather inflexible attitude about ‘what works’ and the shock of having seen a lot of that disproven has probably made me extra intolerant of the convictions of others.

    I am glad to see this site is active again – you are actually worth arguing with, and I apppreciate the time and attention you give to your answers.

    • Drew Baye Aug 18, 2010 @ 11:35

      Some people are able to develop a large amount of strength and size doing just about any program, and while this isn’t proof they could not have achieved the same or better results by some other method, they usually don’t consider that and credit the specific way they trained for their results rather than their genetics. The problem is, most other people don’t realize this and make the mistake of assuming since their favorite pro bodybuilder, lifter, athlete or whoever achieved a particular result by some means they can too, and they end up wasting a lot of time with something that isn’t appropriate for them.

      In some cases, these people were just bigger and stronger than average to begin with, and have actually made little additional improvement as a result of their training. However, most people just look at how big and strong they are and assume they started out average and the training got them where they are.

      In other cases, these people have above average ability to handle, recover from and adapt to exercise. The principles are still the same but they are able to apply them in a way that is entirely inappropriate for the average person. For someone with average genetics to follow their specific routine would result in overtraining and little or no progress, or worse a loss of strength and size if they persist. Most people will look at the specifics of how someone did something rather than look at the principles, however.

      This is from the section on individual variability in High Intensity Bodybuilding (which I’m still editing so exact wording might change),

      People will often praise or condemn a specific program based on their experiences with it, recommending or discouraging its use under the assumption others will respond similarly. This has resulted in a large amount of conflicting information on the best way to train. One person had good results following program A but made little progress on program B, while another had good results with B but made no progress on A. Both insist the program that worked for them is the right way to train and the other person must not have done it correctly and their way is wrong. Actually, both are wrong.

      If you look for common elements in different programs that have worked for people, you will find the same basic principles, and if the program worked for someone it was because the specific application of those principles was appropriate for that individual.

      Instead of considering what program did or did not work for someone, ask why it did or did not work for them, and apply the principles in a way that works for you.

      I think a lot of the slagging you mention is the result of this, and most of it could be avoided if people thought more in terms of principles rather than in specific, set programs or routines.

  • Glenn Magee Aug 18, 2010 @ 11:21

    Actually G I did not say anyone who has results on a different program must have ‘good genetics’. Specifically what I said was everyone has met someone who can progress on a bad program because of good genetics, but that the question that should be asked is whether or not they would have achieved better or faster results on a HIT routine.
    With regard to The Great Gama, who you described as an absolute tank and striking example, I was somewhat disappointed on seeing his photograph. Again the same question could be asked, would he have been more impressive on a lower volume HIT routine. Note that I never inferred that all HIT advocates were built like Arnie.

  • Thiagan Aug 27, 2010 @ 22:59

    Hi Drew, wow! I really believe that if many of your readers understand and follow up and really put into practice, what you have so lucidly conveyed, the muscularity % of your readers are going to change positively. I am greatly interested in what Gorden has said above regarding an older person (chronologically I mean) I am 67+ but I don’t feel old at all. Please let me know what your learned views on an older person lifting weights? My brother is a Doctor in New Zealand and he has won over 15 weightlifting citations/records, he is 71 at present, he enjoys his weight lifting, and has a very lean build. Thanks a million Drew, you are really great! keep up the good work

    • Drew Baye Aug 28, 2010 @ 10:29

      Thiagan,

      I have worked with several people over 60, including one man who was 85 years old and all had good results training at what for them was a high level of intensity. All started at a more moderate intensity level while learning the exercises and improving their conditioning to be able to handle a higher level of intensity and gradually progressed until they were training to failure using moderate rep ranges – most were around 8 to 12 with some lower and some higher depending on their response. The 85 year old was eventually performing rest-pause in the 5 to 8 rep range using what for him was a very heavy load and making good progress. His primary training goal was to improve his golf game and he reported his driving distance went up over 30 yards and he was able to play a full 18 holes with significantly less fatigue, so the high intensity training worked just fine for him.

      While age definitely affects how the body responds to training I have not seen any evidence that training with higher loads is in any way detrimental as long as proper form is used. If anything, the correlation between training load and improvements in bone density and bone mineral content suggests the elderly would benefit from heavier training.