Don't want to start anything


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What is important is if someone can refute what I have stated. So far nobody has done that. Dismissing someone is not refuting him.

I am still going to try and refute you one of these days, I like a challenge.

When I have the time I'll pick up on your research and start disecting it!
"What really bothers me is that so many dispute things instead of trying, collectively, to find the truth. I am amazed at my progress lately."

Aren't you doing the same thing with HST, Vince?
Arthur Jones said he could sell #### if it was marketed the right way. People do sell chicken #### and call it Dynamic Lifter. So Arthur is right.

Forgetting the hype, does a method work? HIT doesn't work as well as Arthur and Mike said it would. That high intensity method is not what the vast majority of big bodybuilders do. Neither do they use HST. It is early days so how much time should we give HST to get the message out there?

I tried so many methods. I have a very good idea about what I need to make my arms and calves grow. Would some variation of HST work? It would no longer be HST. I need much more volume than what is advocated.

Stimulus + food = hypertrophy

HST would not stimulate my arms to grow. I do not have to try this out. They need heaps of sets with heavy weights. I have proven that to myself over the last 46 years. You guys continue to look in the science for something that is not even there. Oh, you will have a sound understanding of muscle physiology but be none the wiser about the technology of hypertrophy.

I wish HIT and HST were the methods. Would save me a lot of time and thinking. I honestly believe that Bryan is missing the key factor to large muscular size. If not missing it then why doesn't he personally get much larger and show all the cynics out there that his method really does work.

From my analysis of bodybuilding I would say that large muscles are needed for moving heavy resistances many, many times. There is a muscular endurance factor that is crucial for very large size. Lots of methods might work for the intermediate but only the right method will produce those really large sizes. If you want arms over 18, assuming you are average in height, then you need to do many, many sets (5+)with a heavy maximum weight for those reps from 5 to 15.

We should be asking Luke Wood why he found 12 reps to work best. Luke does 24 sets for shoulders. Does anyone really believe that Luke or anyone else can build huge shoulders like that doing 2 or 3 sets?
Wait... wait wait wait...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]HST would not stimulate my arms to grow. I do not have to try this out.

You haven't even TRIED it or had someone else try it? And yet you're typing up essay after essay of reasons why it doesn't work?

HST doesn't advocate low volume. You're not even looking past the sample routine.
HST advocates as much volume and as much frequency as you can handle and still keep to the principles.
So if you can handle 10 exercises per workout, 10 sets each, 12 times a week, then that WILL be better for hypertrophy than 3 times a week at 2 sets per exercise.
Buuut you don't seem to even want to try, sooo whatever. You'll make no converts here, just like you won't be converted.

Rovi is right, you ought to try it before dismissing it, in the design of the program, you go as heavy as you want, put in as much volume as you can handle.

But don't forget
your CNS, for you will not be able to put all that volume you say you need to get growth, without wasting your CNS and burn it out if you keep up with the frequency
which is 3x p/ week.

That is the essential difference between HST and other programs, the CNS is very much looked after so that it does not burn out, so forget failure and forget GVT it simply does not work not with the frequency HST advocates!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Arthur Jones said he could sell #### if it was marketed the right way. People do sell chicken #### and call it Dynamic Lifter. So Arthur is right.

He was dang right, many BB'ers are simploid "muscleheads" without much grey matter between their ears and therefore if you had to make #### smell delicious (a tedious and difficult task if you ask me, much easier said than done), they would eat it and advocate that their muscle were growing,
what a sad scenario.

I am definitely not putting anyone of us here on this category but I am sure that you will agree Vince and others.

We may have to start a adult basic education training for dumb muscle heads very soon, we would probably end up fairuing very well indeed.

What is even worst is that the FDA would probably still allow some of these manufacturing "vultures" to place their products in the market without the necessary clinical trials :mad:

This thread is turning out better than I thought! :D
As far as I can tell in my limited wisdom vince is disagreeing with one fundamental principle of progressive load. HST advocates high volume but spread over say 3 sessions a week rather than just one set for a body part but to simplify both Vince and HST are in agreement about high volume.

So we're really just talking about whether lots of sets with a heavy weight is better than progressing the load over time - sd isn't really a factor because that's simply follows from progressive load.

So if someone with more knowledge and intelligence could back up the progressive load that should solve the problem...right?!

Although I think the biggest problem is saying that you know how to make your muscles grow without trying out the programme you are criticising is about as close minded as you can get.

But then again Vince is happy to use his programme, we're all happy to try and improve our past results by using HST so everybody's happy :D


Yes, Rob, that is essentially the main problem I have with HST. The amount of volume is absolutely critical but it must not be spread over training sessions. The volume must be done at the highest intensity level possible for the target reps. Some have tried to persuade us that a few sets will build huge muscles. While that might be a possibility for the rare individual it is totally unrealistic for most of us. Just about every large bodybuilder does volume to obtain that size. I always try to find the minimum that will generate the most gains. The one thing I never did during my career was to do many, many sets with a maximum resistance. To me, this is the critical factor in hypertrophy training. If one applies this principle then progression occurs and size follows.

I state again that in order to isolate principles and discover what sort of volume works on your muscles to select one or two bodyparts and train only them. I recommend arms.

The frequency is another problem but is limited mainly by damaged connective tissue. I doubt that 3 times a week can be sustained for very long. It appears we have evolved muscles that adapt to daily stress. Our connective tissue soon needs a rest.

Vince, you seemed sensible enough until you decided to turn to using pro bodybuilders as ways to advocate high volumes and discredit less sets as advised with HST. You do realize that these morons run the test levels of ten men, and that cows are given the same thing and manage to grow by simply grazing. Bodybuilders need nominal training knowledge. All they need is to have the money for all their drugs, learn to cycle, and eat massive amounts of food. They can grow with almost anything they do.

Three times a week can easily be sustained for an extended period, so long as the CNS is managed properly. Even then, that's why people periodize their training. True, this is more strength related, but I and many others have seen great size and strength gains from Bill Starr's 5x5 routine and it's many variations. This incorpoates a very high workload for four loading weeks. After this, one deloads and the body compensates and recuperates as you ramp up into an intensity phase.
I don't dismiss anyone who can build huge muscles. It is so easy to credit drugs to their success. However, that is another subject and I prefer to talk about hypertrophy with no reference whatever to steroids, etc.

I base my theory on my own experiences and also from being around a gym for about 40 years. Have any of you actually tried to get really big so you could win a state level contest? If you had you will realise that you soon hit plateaus along the way and have to come up with different programs to get ever bigger. When I am commenting on HST vs the DOMS method I am not referring to beginners or others with a year under their belts. I am referring to trying to make already large muscles even bigger. If one can achieve that then that knowledge can be applied to beginners who should grow very rapidly, indeed.

I respect Bill Starr but am not familiar with the details of his program. However, I have doubts about any need for taking layoffs. Something just doesn't seem right about that. Layoffs might be needed for connective tissue to adapt. More research will be needed to convince me otherwise.

Programs that do not produce instant, next day hypertrophy are not maximizing our growth potential. I am telling you people that you can grow rapidly and not to accept anything less. All the lack of results has made religious people out of most of you. You accept that the promiseland is coming if you believe. I am slowly influencing a few of the fellas at my gym. Do you know who the most resistant to new ideas are? Nope, not the older guys. The young guys literally do not believe a thing I tell them. One young fellow comes daily and works up a sweat lifting those weights. I haven't seen anything in the way of discernable growth. So I intercept him from time to time to try to help him. He listens intently, asks a few questions, and then proceeds as if I said nothing at all to him. I haven't given up on him. I think next time I will get him to tell me what his ideas are. When a person has a definite theory about training it is very difficult to change those ideas. It amazes me how some do the same thing over and over and over and over and expect a result but achieve nothing in the way of growth at all.
Yes Vince we get it. You are a pumper. What you advocate is nothing new. Same as Gironda. 10x10 8x8 blah blah blah. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

I'm a pumper, he's a pumper, she's a pumper, we're a pumper wouldn't you like to be a pumper too?

No. Spending hours in the gym every day risking long term repetitive usage injuries and eating potatos and yams all day is not a lifestyle choice even remotely interesting to me.

However, if I was say...a gym owner. I would express a great deal of interest in your DOMS method. Be sure to stock a lot of expensive, big mark-up carb drinks and energy bars dispensers right next to each station.
The requirements for rapid hypertrophy in large muscles is not because of our theories. We have these theories because that is what works. The reason there is some concensus is because various individuals have concluded similar things.

A pump is a concomitant of getting a stimulating workout. My arm workout lasts about 45 minutes because I need a lot of warming up for them because of past injuries. Most should be able to complete an arm workout in 30 minutes. There is no need to train all the muscles each week. If you do then of course this pastime is going to consume you.

Hypertrophy training for rapid gains is always going to be dangerous. One is always at the edge pushing the envelope. Much care is needed to protect the muscles and connective tissue. Exercise selection is extremely important. There are many dangerous exercises that have no place in anyone's protocols. There are also many ineffective exercises but many keep doing these anyway. I have to say that people who exercise often abandon any sense of intelligence whatever. Many people in gyms are literally incapable of learning anything new about training.

Supplements are not what I push or recommend. Our gym sells these things because people will buy them elsewhere. I believe the supplement business is unethical and always has been. Do you have to eat a lot of food to sustain rapid hypertrophy? Well, from my experience, rapid growth leads to an heightened appetite and it is easy to eat more.
Uh, soreness isn't an indicator of a bout of training's efficacy, number one. That's why many guys go without getting sore, while getting bigger.

If you take 45 minutes to train arms alone, that's pathetic. Either you're waiting 4-5 minutes between sets, or you're going overboard with volume. Especially for arms of all bodyparts.
Hey guys :)

Just leave Vince alone. For the past years, Bryan, Blade, Vicious, and Dan (dkm) have been debating with him until they just let him be.

Vince is a bodybuilding vet and gym owner for almost half a century. HST is almost brand new. Vince is deeply rooted already in old bodybuilding knowledge. A good number of the "proof" he's asking for is already available in the web, and in fact he's probably been pointed to it and lectured with it by Bryan, Dan, Blade, Vicious, etc. over and over, but of course, he'd still insist on the methods that worked for him (and the people he's seen) over the past decades.

Nothing's wrong with that. Sure, we can say working out with so many sets over and over in just one workout will cause CNS fatigue (and it will), but Vince already did that for decades and he saw no problem with that, so he still won't believe. And we can point out cortisol levels will be skyrocketing after an hour, so we just recommend 45 mins max as much as possible, but 45 mins is just his arm workout! We can say that this is scientific and uncontested already, that as glycogen and blood glucose begins to drop-off, cortisol (a catabolic hormone) level rises and runs rampant, which is bad because cortisol literally converts muscle tissue to proteins for conversion into glucose (This is simply the body’s way of producing energy when all readily available energy (glucose) and stored forms (glycogen) of energy have been depleted). So we know for a fact, supported and undisputed by modern research, that longer workouts are actually more of a bad thing due to cortisol. Oh, and have I mentioned gluconeogenesis? But again, Vince has been doing the long workouts for decades, and for him it works (as well as for the people he cites), so even despite glaring evidence, he won't say "okay, i'll join the HST bandwagon!"

And the max loads with high volume versus progression of load. This is simply about RBE. You can beat RBE theoretically by simply continuing to increase the overload in your muscle. Theoretically, you can simply increase the load. But since you can't do that indefinitely, you can also keep on increasing the volume so that the weight that is mostly ineffective becomes somewhat effective again. So much herculean volume is needed when dealing with a load that the conditioned muscle has already pretty much adapted to. So really muscle-bound, ripped dudes like Vince do so many sets over and over, otherwise RBE makes sure they don't get squat of a result. On the other hand, we just SD. It's much simpler anyway. But again, Vince has been doing it his way, and has been very satisfied with the results.

So guys, just let it go. Let Vince contribute whatever he wants to the forum. If he says HST is wrong or whatever then cites his reasons, go ask experts if it confuses you. Just don't argue with him anymore, because if the trend in the past years will remain true, then Vince won't be joining HST anytime soon. And nothing's wrong with that, so just let him speak his mind and get it over with, and we can go back with our discussions of the methods that we studied and learned to be effective and also experienced to be effective as well. We can't expect all bodybuilding vets of advanced years to join our bandwagon, since they are heavily grounded in old bodybuilding lore. We already got O&G, we won't get Vince. We win some, we lose some. Let's just go on with our lives.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Vince, you seemed sensible enough until you decided to turn to using pro bodybuilders as ways to advocate high volumes and discredit less sets as advised with HST. You do realize that these morons run the test levels of ten men, and that cows are given the same thing and manage to grow by simply grazing.

Well said, Chtonian, and Vince seems to have that problem, very few of the guys he is mentioning can even get close to people like Zane, Drapper and the like, they probably wonder these days how far they would have gotten with HST!

However, Vince as JV says is set on his ways and will not give anything new a try! To me I analysed it first, tried out a few other things, enquired, got the owner of this new system to explain things to me (This usually does not happen in other sites, the other guys are just too busy to get involved in forums and the like)
, and realized this is different, Bryan put his head on the block of science and really put in the effort of creating the smart way of training!

This is what I call world class, work smarter not harder, why should we when with a lot less investment the returs are very good? Just does not make sense!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm a pumper, he's a pumper, she's a pumper, we're a pumper wouldn't you like to be a pumper too?

Wow, that is hilarious, ecto, you have "hit the proverbial nail on the head"

Vince, we are going to give up on you, you are a kind of saducee, and the gospel just cannot reach you, you have entrenched yourself in the mosaic law, and out of there only you can get! We cannot pull you out, mate!

It is sad, but as I have said previously, you are entitled to your own views even if we think they are erroneous. :confused:

JV and fausto portray me as some stubborn old bloke who won't try anything new. That portrayal reeks of irrationality and thickness.

Well, I try to be scientific in my training. If something doesn't work I abandon it and try something else.

**Vince is deeply rooted already in old bodybuilding knowledge.**

If something is knowledge then it is valuable. What some call knowledge is older theories, many of which are no longer current or which have been replaced by newer ideas. I do not cling to something just because other people believed something in the past. I believe whatever is consistent with my overall hypertrophy theory.

**But again, Vince has been doing the long workouts for decades, and for him it works**

Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. I have not been doing long workouts for decades. For the first 40 years I didn't do that many sets. At various times I tried a bit more volume but never persisted with that method. In 1998 I experimented with the DOMS method and did whatever I had to do to sustain that soreness in my muscles. It turned out to be much more volume using specific, effective exercises. Over the last several years I have been doing many maximum sets to failure and this method is what results in the most hypertrophy for me. It works. Not just for me but for others, too.

We all have to figure out a way to overcome the RBE. Me included. No one is immune. HST suggests a way and I have a different route.

Some of you fellows throw research findings at problems and conclude that something is possible or not possible. Well, your science might be inadequate. While I admit that my theories have to withstand the inspection of science the current knowledge or our understanding of that science is lacking.

JV suggests that working a muscle for 45 minutes has all sorts of scientific evidence that this is not a good thing to do. Well, that conclusion is humbug. There has to be something wrong with your conclusions because my muscles and others do grow on such protocols. Get back in the lab and do the right experiments. Using exercise science in such an inappropriate way is bad science.

**However, Vince as JV says is set on his ways and will not give anything new a try**

Fauto, that statement is completely false. I have been trying new things for almost half a century.

HST as formulated by Bryan would suit beginner and intermediate programs in gyms. My programs can be used by beginners but they would not appreciate them and would prefer to do a total body program because that appears to be better. They go home feeling they have done something for all muscle groups. However, I never train my whole body on any day and doubt very many large bodybuilders do, either.

I will say this again. The test for truth is the gains that one can obtain using a program. No amount of explaining or science can refute that. If someone here wants to impress me they will come up with predictions from science that will explain things better than what has been done previously. I have heaps of questions that science cannot answer.

I remain unconvinced by the science thrown at me. You guys can do much better than that. Can you point to any research that has been done on my type of training and the physiological responses and implications from it? If you have none then you cannot dismiss what I have said because there is no evidence that my method does not work. Running to various research and coming up with explanations why my method cannot work is a gross misuse of science and a very bad example to all those who read this forum looking for knowledge and advice.
Even assuming your method does work for natural trainees (this is still a key thing), HST is a much easier way to go about it. It's like a shortcut. You can't argue with results, this is true. However, why take the longer, bumpier road if you don't have to?

Of course, some of us have a bit of masochism in us and we enjoy that sort've thing. That's why people do 20-rep squats, even when they have no real purpose.

Also, there is a good deal of evidence, both shown in science and real world situations, where training that infrequently leads to stagnation pretty quickly. Most people stick with the once a week protocol and end up going no where with it, which in turn leads them to steroid usage and such.

On top of that, even if hammering away on a bodypart at high intensities with high volume does work for hypertrophy, you'll burn out for CNS rather quickly. The only way I can think of to avoid this is to lower the frequency of your training, or only use your method for ridiculously stubborn bodyparts. In that sense I can see a dedicated arm/calf session combined, but even then, one would be better served by pushing their bench, military, row and chinup weights up 30 lbs. (chins, this is a lot) to 150 lbs. I bet if you bench 205 and start putting up 315, your chest will be bigger, on a whole.

Of course, some specialization work can be done thereafter to bring up any noticable weak points.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vince Basile @ Aug. 05 2005,5:20)]If you have none then you cannot dismiss what I have said because there is no evidence that my method does not work.
Hi Vince,

Please forgive me if you've done this already, but can you summarize your "method" in straightforward terms? That'll make it easier to consider your method without browsing through several different multi-page theads.

Thanks much.
Someone on this forum gave me a suggestion to read about Dante's Doggcrap training and I have spent some time doing that. Interesting reading. Another person who claims to know what hypertrophy specific training is but is different from what you read on this forum. Clearly both methods cannot be right.

I also claim to have a method that builds muscle fast. My method is closer to DC than HST. DC is closer to HIT than HST. You guys here will have to pay your dues and find out which is the best method. Arguing issues will probably not convince true believers about anything different at all.

Those who want to learn more about what I suggested can do a search of this forum under my name. All the relevant threads should be there.