Wally Day  wrote of Casey Viator:

> I also invited him to join this list. He does have a book to sell, you
> know
> :)


John Casler writes:

That would be great.  I have often wondered why some of the Nautilus and HIT
icons don't post here.

Ellington, Casey, Mastorakis, Yates, etc, would probably find a good market,
as well as conversation here.

I know I'd find them, their training histories, and their current thoughts,
"engaging".

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

Thanks for posting the extraction from the interview. Can you let us know where
it occured in order to read all of it - now that you've whetted out appetite!!

Ken ONeill
kayoneill@...



----- Original Message -----
From: Wally Day
To: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/31/2005 4:25:48 PM
Subject: [HIT Digest] Re: Casey Viator


Until I get permission from Casey to post his email remarks (which means he
did respond to me), I'll post this excerpt from an interview with him a few
years ago. His reply to me reinforced what he says here.

====

BDJ: Several years ago there appeared an article in Muscle &  Fitness
entitled "Casey Comes Clean." In this article, you discussed the Colorado
experiment with Arthur Jones and how you gained over 60 pounds of muscle.
In the article you downplayed HIT training, saying you needed more volume
than 3 days per week, and that he was "sneaking" in extra workouts on your
own time. I would be curious to know if that was a propaganda article, or
if that reflected your honest opinion.

CV: This pretty much was a propaganda article. I might have written 30% 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 60 lbs.
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.

====

I also invited him to join this list. He does have a book to sell, you know
:)





To get this in a Digest form, please go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest
and change your subscription settings.

The HIT Digest is a feature of Cyberpump! http://www.cyberpump.com

HIT Digest email addresses:
   Post message: Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com
   Subscribe:    Hitdigest-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
   Unsubscribe:  Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   List owner:   Hitdigest-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest

Please review the Rules of the Digest at
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitdigest/rules.html
------------------------------------

Got a question, check out the HIT FAQ first.
http://www.cyberpump.com/hitfaq/
------------------------------------





YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  Visit your group "Hitdigest" on the web.

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  Hitdigest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael this is an awesome reply. You are right, I always claim 30 or
40 lbs of muscle but really I know it's a combo of muscle and fat. I
thought tis would continue all the way up to 200 lbs, but in my
efforts to even reach 180 I got fat, and guess what I've kept some
for several years!

I started doing cardio alot more about 2 years ago. I actually like
to run and did it in track. But I want both. 5-K and 10-K races are
fun and I will do a marathon, just once to say I did it. But then
thats it because i believe running too much is bad for you, we all
know of all the damage to the joints and other injuries runners get.
Plus I just prefer lifting.

So you were dead on about the diet and measurement deal. I do have a
Tanita bodyfat scale, which is not the best measurement way, and also
a tape for my arms and all that. But how often do I track and log
this? Not enough.

Diet, boy I wish I had the patience to log stuff. There are however
some awesome things online like fitday and calorieking I've worked
with. Thing is I am not consistent with using them. I need to be.

I really want to focus on eating for energy. This is where 5-6 meals
a day of properly chosen food really helps.

Well anyways awesome news today guys. I haven't lifted in 4 weeks.
Today was my first day back. I was able to lift at the same weight
and get more reps than before on all lifts except biceps. Which to me
pretty much means I wasn't at my max weights at this new gym (I use a
variety of Hammer like machines and other stuff, so it takes a bit to
calibrate the proper weight), but it also means to be I didn't lose
much strength.

Good stuff. This forum can really be an awesome thing. The one reason
I Like it is that compared to bodybuilding.com, the flame wars are
way less! I mean just bring up HIT at bodybuilding.com starts a war.


--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "michaelalorden"
<michaelalorden@y...> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I am glad to see your reply. You seem to mention some things that
are
> almost predictable given your history. Now I am no expert like some
> people here, but maybe I have some pretty simple insights that can
> help you:
>
> I think what you are saying is that you are a guy who has made some
> Great gains, but more in the past, and what you are saying now is
> that any attempts to put on "mass" as you are calling it, end up in
> the ab-area.
>
> You said, "You'd think I'd at least have a 6-pak." Hmmm. Are you
sure
> that you don't have a 6pak? I'll bet you do have one. You know, I
> believe that everyone has a 6-pak, but whether you SEE it or not
has
> a lot more to do with what you are doing in the kitchen than it
does
> with what you are doing in the gym. I'd bet most grandmas have 6-
paks,
> but no one ever sees them. They've gotta have abs, or they couldn't
> Bend, right? So, you "have" a 6-pak. Maybe you have an 8-pak! The
> question now becomes, "How does Dave get to his abs?"
>
> Here's the other area I want to address: You have said that you put
> 30# on a 135# body. Now, I don't know if that was 30# of Lean
Muscle,
> or 30# of an assortment of stuff - muscle, water, fat, creatine-
> holding-water, etc. Did you get "big hair"? But, let's just say
that
> you have put 30# of lean muscle onto a smallish frame, that started
> with only 135# of muscle. If that is the case, then perhaps - just
> maybe, you have reached your genetic potential. (I know, you didn't
> want to hear that, but it gets better.  Read on.)
>
> In the first place, if you have reached your genetic potential,
then
> there is always the possibility than you can get stronger still.
Not
> so many size-rewards, but the rewards of knowing that you are
> increasing your strength? There's value in that, right?
>
> I kinda wonder too, if you have a good set of "realistic" goals. I
> would hope that a guy who began at 135# isn't trying to look like
> Arnold. That would set you up for a lot of disappointment I think.
>
> So here are some suggestions for you. I don't know that they'll be
so
> much worse than anyone else's on here, so see what you think:
>
> 1) Figure out who you want to look like - not the Hulk, just a
> reasonable role model for Dave. Someone who looks a little better
> than you do right now. I used to think that Steve Reeves was my
role
> model, but I have recently pick-ep a new one - one more reasonable
> for a little guy like me. (Actually we're the same weight.)
>
> 2) Then get yourself down to 10% bodyfat. This is the REALLY
critical
> component of this plan. At 10% bodyfat you will not be ripped, but
> you will see your abs.
>
> 3) Then pick a program to work - any descent, reasonable, reliable
> program. Nothing fancy - just something that is bound to give
> results. My honest opinion is that the HG program we have been
> talking about would be an excellent place to begin. Given
everything
> you have said my opinion is that it would be risky at this point to
> work a split program. I would certainly go with a whole body
program
> to begin with.
>
> Start eatting to make slow weight-gains of about 2-3# per month.You
> WILL put on some muscle (and a bit of fat) every month, but you
have
> to really give the program Hell. You have to be consistent. Get
> measured- all your measurements, and have a fat% done at the end of
> every month. Make slow weight-gains until you you hit 15% bodyfat
and
> then cut-up.
>
> It would be downright impossible to not see gains. You see, the
> problem with a lot of guys is this - they're shooting in the dark.
> The reason why is because they don't have a Complete, Well-Thought-
> Out program that includes weight training and rest/recovery. They
are
> operating without clear guidelines for the Management of their
> weight, they have no idea if they are ACTUALLY gaining muscle or
NOT
> because they aren't doing Measurements, and they have no idea how
to
> eat properly. My guess is that youwould fit into this category. If
> so, then Get out of it! Just going to the gym and lifting isn't
going
> to give you what you need at this point. You have to get methodical
> about it!
>
> That's all for today. Best of Luck,
>
> -michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "daveroesener"
<daveroesener@y...>
> wrote:
> > Thanks
> > Thats the good news. But most of those gains were made over 10
> years
> > ago.
> >
> > Since then it's been a huge struggle. And youw would think being
as
> > skinny as I am I'd have 6 pack abs. But any attempts to put on
more
> > mass, land in right in the abdominals.
> >
> > No fun huh.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "michaelalorden"
> > <michaelalorden@y...> wrote:
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > That's incredible. If you started out that small and put that
> much
> > > muscle on...I'm impressed!
> > >
> > > Big Round of Applause for Dave. *********** (those are claps)
> > >
> > > Thanks for the compliments. Yeah, I think consistency is pretty
> > > important. I think it's dogpile.com.
> > >
> > > -ml
> > >
> > > P.S. It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size
of
> > the
> > > fight in the dog!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "daveroesener"
> > <daveroesener@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > This sounds very interesting. As you mentioned other athletes
> > cycle
> > > > intensity, think of how they taper before races.
> > > >
> > > > Since as bodybuilders we don't have a race we never taper.
> > > >
> > > > I am a classic skinny guy that put on 30 lbs of muscle, but
I'm
> > > still
> > > > skinny.
> > > >
> > > > I have gotten stronger. I want to put on more mass. Once I
got
> my
> > > > body to 175 lbs from 135 lbs weight any attempts to put on
more
> > > > weight have led me to get a gut. So I try to lose the gut
(I'm
> > > doing
> > > > good on that now but weigh 165 with no more muscle and have
to
> do
> > > > cardio which I do like when I don't have broken toes).
> > > >
> > > > I am at the point of trying anything. It's kind of
frustrating
> > when
> > > > guys you can lift more than look at you and think you aren't
> > strong
> > > > because of external appearances. If they only knew how far
I've
> > > come
> > > > from the 135 lb sand in the face weakling they'd know.
> > > >
> > > > I should probably post measurements too. In any event I want
to
> > > dial
> > > > in diet and workout regime.
> > > >
> > > > I'll be 32, I get stronger when i workout consistently. You
> have
> > > > inspired me even more Michael. You maybe 54 but you are in
> better
> > > > shape than alot of 20 year olds.
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to learn more about your program. I will read
dogpile,
> > is
> > > it
> > > > dogpile.com?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "michaelalorden"
> > > > <michaelalorden@y...> wrote:
> > > > > As I'm reading through the posts I'm seeing that there are
> some
> > > > > questions about the HG-FAQ. First I will say that I have
been
> > > > working
> > > > > out for 7 years. The first 5 were a complete waste on what
I
> > > > > call "the lazy susan of useless gym-trainer advise." Then I
> was
> > > > > introduced to the HIT-FAQ which is found by going to
Dogpile -
>
> > > the
> > > > > search engine. I was very impressed with HIT, but after
doing
> > it
> > > > for
> > > > > 8 weeks in a row a couple times, it was too intense. It got
> to
> > > > where
> > > > > I'd only last 6 weeks and then only 5 weeks before I
> completely
> > > hit
> > > > > the wall - not getting any sleep, nervous twitches,
catching
> > the
> > > > > flue, etc. I was quickly becoming so overtrained that I
> > couldn't
> > > go
> > > > > on.
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to explain at this point that I am a hardgainer. And
> > what
> > > I
> > > > > mean by that is that I just don't respond to almost any
> > exercise
> > > > > program. I did respond to the HIT-FAQ protocol, but as I
said
> > it
> > > > was
> > > > > too intense for me. Well, when you think of it, who really
> can
> > go
> > > > > 100%, 100% of the time year after year, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, the friend who introduced me to the HIT-FAQ
> > > > > recommended that I look at another one: The HG-FAQ. It was
> > > designed
> > > > > for Hardgainers, and it has "intensity cycling" built right
> > into
> > > > it.
> > > > > So, I tried it. Essentially, it is a HIT-style protocol
with
> > this
> > > > > difference: It's a 5 month cycle. I begin each cycle by
> taking
> > 10
> > > > > days off. Then, when I come back to the gym I reduce all my
> > > weights
> > > > > to 80% of my previous past max. Then, I rebuild to my past
> > > weights
> > > > > slowly over the next few weeks. I'm back up to my bicep
> weight
> > in
> > > > in
> > > > > 2-3 weeks, but Squats, Deads, and Shrugs take a full two
> > months.
> > > > The
> > > > > more weight you lift, the longer you give yourself to get
> back
> > up
> > > > > there. During the build-up phase I am not "necessarily"
> trying
> > to
> > > > hit
> > > > > failure. (O.K., I do though sometimes, but I consciously
try
> > not
> > > > to -
> > > > > I'm supposed to be giving my body a break.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > After the build-up phase I continue adding weight to all my
> > > lifts.
> > > > By
> > > > > this time I'm only adding the slightest amount to bi and
tri
> > > moves,
> > > > > but I'm still adding a good amount to the other ones. I am
> now
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > high-point of my cycle. I'm giving it everything I've got,
> but
> > > only
> > > > > for a couple weeks. Then my frequency starts dropping off
and
> I
> > > > start
> > > > > reducing sets. Toward the end I alternate with some
exercises
> > one
> > > > WO,
> > > > > and other exercises for the following WO. For my final trip
> to
> > > the
> > > > > gym I may only do 5 or 6 exercises - one set only - just
the
> > ones
> > > > I'm
> > > > > still making gains on.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What you get with this is a sort of "running jump" for a
few
> > > weeks
> > > > to
> > > > > get going, a few weeks of really intense work, and then you
> > > > continue
> > > > > with the "going to failure" as much as you want but you go
> less
> > > > > frequently, and then when all your gains stop, and they
will,
> > > > that's
> > > > > when You stop: 10 days off again, take the weights back
down
> > and
> > > > > build back up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I know. You think it won't work - too much wated
time,
> > not
> > > > > enough intensity, I'm not a hardgainer; why should I do
that?
> > > > Well,it
> > > > > does work. McRoberts talks about how athletes all over
cycle
> > > thier
> > > > > intensity, And if you think about it, you probably already
> Are
> > > > > cyclying your intensity in some kind of a way. (Dave is
> talking
> > > > about
> > > > > going 3 weeks and taking 1 off. Sarn wants to know about
> > > submaximal
> > > > > intensity and brief cycles. Brief cycles are explained in
> this
> > > FAQ
> > > > > also.)
> > > > >
> > > > > The results for me have been unquestionable, and I'm the
> least
> > > one
> > > > to
> > > > > expect to grow on anything there is. I probably couldn't
grow
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > juice. But in the last year and a half I've aded 250# to
both
> > my
> > > > > squats and deads. Would you like to do that? I also put 3"
on
> > my
> > > > > chest this last year. I'm 54 too, probably with about as
much
> > > > > testosterone left as a dead sea turtle, but I work this
> program
> > > > hard
> > > > > becausse I have a goal for myself, and I don't dare even
> Think
> > > > about
> > > > > trying anything else.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll tgell you a funny story: I'm a skinny ectomorph-type
> guy,
> > > and
> > > > > there was this young gjuy watching me bench a couple months
> > ago.
> > > He
> > > > > asked me, "How come you lower the bar to slowly?"
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I told his that one really important reason was
> > > > because, "Skinny
> > > > > guys like you and me have skinny little tendons and we need
> to
> > be
> > > > > really careful that we don't stress 'em out, and it's Safer
> > this
> > > > way."
> > > > >
> > > > > So he looks at me, and he says, "Well, you don't look so
> > skinney
> > > to
> > > > > me!" And I guess I'm not so much anymore. but I used to be.
> The
> > > guy
> > > > > who introduced me to the HG-FAQ isn't a skinny/ectomorph
guy.
> > > He's
> > > > a
> > > > > pretty big endomorph with a lot of muscle and he testifies
to
> > the
> > > > > success he has had with this program too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read his books. Impy tells me they are good. I
will
> > get
> > > > > them when I can. I can't now. I will tell you this though,
> > don't
> > > > > waste one moment trying to locate those books through the
> phone
> > > > > numbers and addresses listed at the back of the FAQ -
they're
> > all
> > > > old!
> > > > >
> > > > > If anybody wants to try this, then get to Dogpile and look
> for
> > > the
> > > > HG-
> > > > > FAQ. Read it. I'm sorry to say that it's Very poorly
written,
> > so
> > > > > you're going to have to struggle through it. My synopsis
> above
> > is
> > > > > probably better than most of that FAQ. And if you decide to
> try
> > > > that
> > > > > program, then e-mail me and I can tell you how to reduce
your
> > > > weights
> > > > > and rebuild them because he doesn't explain that very well
> and
> > > it's
> > > > > critical for success.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave: Good luck with that toe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Miguel: If you're reading this, keep away from those
storms,
> > man!
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a good week guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > -michael

wayne wrote:

> By the way I suggested that pyramiding up in weight was not the way
> to go, should have stated pyramiding up in weight was not the way to
> go for ME, as I have never done any warm ups, I count the initial
> first reps warm ups.
>
> But as John has been around and is a clever guy, I need to try this,
> on the calf routine I am trying, 30, 15 and 10 reps, I am going up in
> weight but not at all as much as John is, from the 30 reps, I have 90
> seconds in-between sets I can only go up by 20% and this set is to
> failure on the last rep, then to my next set, which is 10 reps I can
> only go up by 20% again and this is to failure on the last rep.

John Casler writes:

Glad you enjoy the 30 reps on calves, but again I have no claim as to this
being a system I advocate for calves.

wayne wrote:

> I tried this on my shoulders and lats and it was the same, I can only
> go up with small percentages. why is this, it's because my body has
> different amount of fast and slow twitch fibers than John, we all
> have different amounts, and thus my need to not warm up, and can use
> my highest percentage of my strength FIRST of say ten reps, working
> at roughly 85% of my one rep max, at 2/4 and then in a matter of only
> 20 seconds to reduce the weigh by only 10 to 15% and do another 10
> reps a 2/4 and again rest only 20 seconds and reduce the weight by
> another 10 to 15% and still do another 10 reps, I agree it works
> great for your body John but not for mine, HOWEVER I will still give
> the 30, 15 and 10 reps a go on my other bodyparts, as one or two
> workouts is not enough to come to any conclusions.

John Casler writes:

Wayne warm up is needed to achieve maximum metabolic, structural, and CNS
efficiency.

As I mentioned earlier, "IF" you were doing pulldowns (or bench presses or
whatever) with 350-400#, you would not be wise to start with your max set in
the number one slot.

wayne wrote:

> When I do fast reps like John states say roughly 1/2 rep speed, I
> fail faster than on 2/4, let me explain, an example, if I can curl
> 200 for 10 reps at 2/4 the TUT is 60 seconds, now if I put 200 on the
> bar and do faster reps at rep speed of 1/2 I might fail at 15 reps,
> but remember the rep speed is faster, and that 15 reps TUT only adds
> up to 45 second I fail at compeered to the 60 seconds at 2/4 rep
> speed, see what I am getting at, so which is best ??? To fail faster
> with a faster rep speed, or to be able to continue longer with a
> slower rep speed.

John Casler writes:

Wayne I didn't know you could curl 200#??  That is quite good.  Do you do
that without a warm up?

What is your "real" weight for curls?

To answer your question, for strength it is better to harvest the loads and
tensions of faster reps.

You get too mesmerized with TUT.  Power generation is of more importance,
for strength.

> John wrote,
> heavy weights, they "cannot" use them with high intensity
> without "warming up" the support tissue, muscle tissue, joints,
> circulatory system, and other metabolic support.You can only start at
> the top, if you are using "relatively" light weights, that don't
> stress the tissues enough to create a chance of injury. I'm sorry,
> but that is how it is.You have brainwashed yourself into thinking
> that if you train one set to failure you shouldn't be able to do
> another set. That simply is not true. If it was true, I wouldn't have
> been able to train that way, and I did, and I did it beyond an age
> where it should have reasonable to do so.
> Which strength would you rather have. A type of strength that is
> easily used up and deteriorates quickly? or a type of strength that
> allows maximum repeated effort? Hmmm tough decision.

> Wayne replied,
> You cant you heavy weights for reps with out warming up, but  am
> sorry John BUT I CAN STOP. YOU can only use relatively light weights
> if YOU start at the top, I HOWEVER can use HEAVY weights if I start
> at the top, as I said I use roughly 85% of my one rep max for say 10
> reps at 2/4.

John Casler writes:

I don't know how to make this any more clear:

1) When you reach "heavy" weights you need to warm up
2) Metabolic Initiation and Approach Sets function to "prepare" the body to
work more effectively.

What you're not seeing is that you haven't gotten to that strength level
yet.  As your weights get heavier (if they do) then at some point you will
not be able to start at the top.

Some months ago when I was squatting rather heavy, my "warm-up" set was 365#
x 15.  Most would consider that rather foolhardy in itself, but I would have
been a fool to jump to 465# x 6, with no warm up.

Now if your best squat is 250# x 10, then have at it for the first set.

Additionally, you won't be your "strongest" on a set going from "no weight"
to max without stimulating the CNS.

What do powerlifters do?  Do they just go out and max out without a warm up?
Of course not.  Because the warm up is preparation for hitting the highest
effort.


> John wrote,
> Which strength would you rather have. A type of strength that is
> easily used up and deteriorates quickly? or a type of strength that
> allows maximum repeated effort? Hmmm tough decision.


> Wayne wrote,
> As you can see my highest strength can be used instantly and is does
> not at all deteriorate with the next sets which are done in a matter
> on 20 seconds, it's all a matter of our different muscle fibers,
> these is no need to argue, we just have different muscle types, I
> think the majority of people would far rather my type of strength.

John Casler writes:

Wayne your muscle typing assertion is a "red herring" and while typing has
relevance, it is not the reason for our differing views and results.

And you "are not" using your maximum strength since without the proper "warm
up" you cannot do so.  You are fooling yourself that you are "maxing" out,
when in fact you are leaving your best lift in the gym.

wayne wrote:

> For a matter of interest, and I know you will be honest, what is your
> one rep max on the pulldown ???

John Casler writes:

Sad to say, I have not found a machine, I can load to that point, or didn't
have tools to do so.  I have done 430 x 3, 420 x 4, and 400 x 6.

  wayne wrote:

> if you have only experimented on your body, you can't say your way
> will work for all.

John Casler writes:

While I am not a trainer (per se) I have had well over a hundred trainees
use this style of program from athletes to an 87 year old lady, all with
similar results.

wayne wrote:

> I know this is a bit different to what we are talking about, but ever
> seen a Siberian tiger, Siberian Males will reach a weight of 190 -
> 306 kilograms (419 - 675 pounds) and may reach a length of 4 meters,
> and the fastest of the cats the cheetah, I have seen these from a
> laying down position, go to a full speed and for quite some time to
> catch their pray, without any kind of warm up and without any pulled
> muscles. also Arthur tested his Gorilla Mickey on strength exercises
> without any warm up, and as we know Rather is one of the best in the
> writing on exercise, please see Nautilus bulletins 1, 2 and 3,
> anybody here ever write anything like those ??? he was a genius, he
> got millions into the gym.

John Casler writes:

Another "red herring" which means nothing.

There are plenty of injured animals in the wild.  They get eaten!

As far as Arthur, he was not a genius, but he did (IMHO) have moments of
brilliance.  He just didn't have the tools to take them all the way, so much
was incorrect.

> John Casler writes:
>
> I would think that reps above 15 reps for calves would limit the load
> too
> much (for me anyhow)
>
> Wayne wrote,
> Why would reps above 15 limit the load, what about your 30 reps on
> other body parts, would that not to limit the load even more, I
> thought this was meant to be a warm up set, or do you not do warm up
> sets on your calf's, and if not why, you seem so convinced of them on
> other body parts ???

John Casler writes:

The calves are essentially two main muscles and they are not only the
furthest from the heart, but their bloodflow is impeded by gravity.  This
creates a difference as compared to the arms, chest shoulders or back which
have very close proximity to the heart and quick blood return.

They are also "dense" muscles which all adds up to reduced performance at
higher reps in the "strength" area.

Plus calves are conditioned to "endure" but seldom receive maximal loads.
This means they would likely respond best to heavier loads and tensions.
This may vary for different individuals.

My calf and ankle warm ups consists of a set of "no weight" toe raises.

> John Casler writes:
> Again I also want to continue to straighten out, that I "do not" just
> suggest people train with 30 reps.
>
> The 20 rep and 30 reps sets were the result of taking what I was
> failing
> with for 10-15 reps, and simply HIT'ing each set harder.

> Wayne wrote,
> So John, seems you have only just stated to work to full failure,
> cant really believe that as I imagine you have worked to failure
> years ago, as you said the 30 reps were the result of taking what you
> was failing at on 10 to 15 reps, that seems to me that you was not
> working to compete failure at all, well not seems to me that you was
> not working to complete failure at all, you was not working to
> complete failure, as you had another 15 reps in you, not putting you
> down here at all just stating the facts as I read them ok, as when I
> go for say 12 reps working at 2/4 it is to complete failure, and
> there would be no way I could get one more rep, but 15 more ???.

John Casler writes:

Seems to me you don't understand progress.  I notice that you don't post any
of your weights you use.  I assume this is because that aren't that large.

While I am beyond the age of making additional progress as my capacity is
less than when I was 50, you make these claims of progress yet only talk of
TUT and other computations using "made up" numbers like 200# curls.

I would suggest that you post your real numbers and progress if you wish to
make your points.

If we follow the reasoning of your assertion, then it stands by reason that
"no one" (except you of course) worked to failure "IF" they later performed
to a higher standard, by making progress.  They simply "thought" they were
failing or "guessed" their weights incorrectly.

I found a system that broke the barriers of a single set to failure, I was
using.  It not only broke them, it annihilated them.

I have no doubts that you train to failure, and will probably not be able to
do what I did.  I wouldn't have been able to do it either, if I still
trained like you suggest.


> John Casler writes:
> Eventually I arrived at 20-30 reps in some exercises and not only
> that, I
> then stacked on even more weight.
>
> Wayne wrote,
> Cant believe you could have guessed your weight that wrong for any
> exercise, If I had guessed my weights that wrong for my 10 to 15 reps
> I would have, put a big extra amount of weight on the bar in my next
> session, with would have brought the reps down to the right amount of
> reps, but I would never guess any weights that far out, again I am
> not putting you down at all John just reading what you are writing,
> maybe I have it all wrong, sorry if I have, could you please explain,

John Casler wrote:

Wayne I have no answer for you.  I don't "guess" weights.  The weights that
I used when I started that adventure came from over 30 years of hard
training, with great results.  I don't know how to make it any more clear.
The weights I used "were" pretty high level for a 50'ish male.  The fact
that I made the progress I did, is based on the system, and extracting far
more from my capacity than I ever thought possible.

You on the other hand are handing out advice on training based on what?

> Wayne wrote,
> As most here know, I use different routines for four to six weeks,
> high reps low reps, double double, yes I did mean double double pre-
> exhaustion, super slow 10/5 for 2 sets of 4 reps with HEAVY weight
> and so on.
> I really enjoyed you 30, 15 and 10 reps on my calf's John that you
> did not recommend, and added another set of 10 reps, at the end, with
> a full stop on both sides.

John Casler writes:

I find that your changing programs curious also.  That is hardly enough time
to make true results, and certainly not enough time to reach the limit of
progress of a routine.

wayne wrote:

> Hope I did not sound aggressive to you John, as I did not mean to be,
> as I know you are a very clever guy and respect you, just a friendly
> debate ok, hope we can learn from each other, my friends love hearing
> your story's of the times you trained with the greats.

John Casler writes:

Wayne nothing you could post to me would be taken as aggressive.  I know you
are curious and you must certainly wonder why my posts contain occasional
opposition to what you have been led to believe as fact.

While there is certainly room that on any one point, I might be in error, I
do have both the background, experience, education, and personal results to
back up most of my assertions.

I feel HIT need not be shackled by some of the old ideology created by those
who have less of those fundamental qualities.

You can train how you wish, and believe what you wish, but you will also
continue to ask questions.  Those questions will eventually lead you to
discover new "paths to progress" that formerly weren't lit.

Too bad you can't train in the same gym.  I'd freak you right out, and have
you doing things that would take you places you have never been (as long as
you still have a reasonable hormonal profile).

Now that would be fun.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

Until I get permission from Casey to post his email remarks (which means he
did respond to me), I'll post this excerpt from an interview with him a few
years ago. His reply to me reinforced what he says here.

====

BDJ: Several years ago there appeared an article in Muscle &  Fitness
entitled "Casey Comes Clean." In this article, you discussed the Colorado
experiment with Arthur Jones and how you gained over 60 pounds of muscle.
In the article you downplayed HIT training, saying you needed more volume
than 3 days per week, and that he was "sneaking" in extra workouts on your
own time. I would be curious to know if that was a propaganda article, or
if that reflected your honest opinion.

CV: This pretty much was a propaganda article. I might have written 30% 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 60 lbs.
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.

====

I also invited him to join this list. He does have a book to sell, you know
:)

Hi All:

Over the years I've expressed doubt and dismay about the famous Colorado
Experiment. Back in the early 70s when it was first reported in Ironman
Magazine, I was amazed. By then I knew a bit about so-called muscle memory - the
phenomenon of rather quickly regaining muscle after a lay off. Viator's gains
were astonishing. In those days, Ironman was the sole source for Arthur Jones
writings - and anybody else doing experimental work. For the fifty years Peary
and Mabel Rader ran Ironman, it was the only open forum in publication.
Throughout the 50s and 60s the Weider publications and the York/Hoffman
publications were pretty much engrossed in open warfare against each other, and
that squeezed anything new out - except for the Raders, the ethical voice of the
Irongame. For years, that was the only place you could read Arthur Jones
startling information.

Nautilus brewed for a spell, then with the 24 hour Nautilus gyms of the mid to
late 70s took off like wildfire. By then Hoffman was aging and slowing down,
while the Weider empire was growing like never before - as was IFBB, which
before had little credability. So Nautilus became a moving target - selling
barbells would slow down to a snail's pace if everybody was joining Nautilus
gyms. Besides, Arthur was not kind to the supplement industry either - and
supplements sell bodybuilding magazines (or are bodybuilding magazines really
supplement catalogues?).

About that time Casey Viator began competing in the IFBB contests. He'd already
won the AAU Mr America and the NABBA Mr Universe. Neither of those carried cash
prizes. Somewhere in that time an article appeared in Muscle and Fitness with
his name as author, and it claimed the Colorado Experiment was a hoax. That
along with HIT he'd snuck off and done volume training and a lot of steriods.
I've wondered ever since what the truth was - and if Viator could be trusted.

The other day, in the course of heated exchanges with this group's moderator, It
dawned on me that now with the internet I could probably just write to Casey
Viator. But would he answer? What would he say?

I wrote to him. And he replied saying he'd written only a fraction of the
article, the rest being Weider work. And he wrote more about what he's doing
these days - independent of it all. He's sure earned my respect for his honesty
and forthrightness. Check out his website - at 53 he's looking good, darned
good. And the results that show with clients speak for themselves.

So the lion's share of the article is not Viator's work. And his website harkens
back to the original reporting of the Colorado Experiment. For me, case closed.
I rely on the integrity of his reporting.

It seems to me, as well, he's the only one who's won big titles with the Jones'
form of training, the only one who's persevered with it, and the only one NOT
out to make a big splash with it. His website is pretty matter of fact. No
frills, no thrills - what you see is what you get. I like that - it's more like
Zen than pie in the sky. And it speaks volumes without saying a lot of words.

I do apologize to one and all for stirring things up when I should have been
wide awake enough to simply write to Casey Viator.

best regards,

kayo

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi there all,
This might be of interest to John and all, First off, I told a bit of
a white lie, I said,

I have had a break in go at both to get the weights right, and found
that on faster reps than I usually do, I needed less weight than I
thought, and was pleasantly sore,
I only had a break in on the 30, 15 and 10 reps, and was pleasantly
sore, when I was writing that post I had just done the 5x15 and 5x10
reps, but guessed the weight great, on the third set of the 15 reps I
was at failure on the last couple of reps, so carried on pushing at
the weight and some partial reps, same thing happened on the 10 reps,
BUT the next day after I was not at all sore, well very very very
slightly, and did do the one legged, calf raises on the leg press
just like John said to do, in his recommended two legged standing
version below, BUT was as I said pleasantly sore from the 30, 15 and
10 reps, so for my calf's I image this is the better routine, by far,
but whatever will still do both routines for six weeks and post the
results.

By the way I suggested that pyramiding up in weight was not the way
to go, should have stated pyramiding up in weight was not the way to
go for ME, as I have never done any warm ups, I count the initial
first reps warm ups.

But as John has been around and is a clever guy, I need to try this,
on the calf routine I am trying, 30, 15 and 10 reps, I am going up in
weight but not at all as much as John is, from the 30 reps, I have 90
seconds in-between sets I can only go up by 20% and this set is to
failure on the last rep, then to my next set, which is 10 reps I can
only go up by 20% again and this is to failure on the last rep.

I tried this on my shoulders and lats and it was the same, I can only
go up with small percentages. why is this, it's because my body has
different amount of fast and slow twitch fibers than John, we all
have different amounts, and thus my need to not warm up, and can use
my highest percentage of my strength FIRST of say ten reps, working
at roughly 85% of my one rep max, at 2/4 and then in a matter of only
20 seconds to reduce the weigh by only 10 to 15% and do another 10
reps a 2/4 and again rest only 20 seconds and reduce the weight by
another 10 to 15% and still do another 10 reps, I agree it works
great for your body John but not for mine, HOWEVER I will still give
the 30, 15 and 10 reps a go on my other bodyparts, as one or two
workouts is not enough to come to any conclusions.

And if you're talking about short term recovery, as in what's
happening immediately afterwards, yes. If we had two people, one with
quads that were primarily fast twitch, one slow twitch, and had them
do two sets of leg extensions with 30 sec rest in between, the slow
twitch subject would perform much better relative their initial
performance than the fast twitch subject.

When I do fast reps like John states say roughly 1/2 rep speed, I
fail faster than on 2/4, let me explain, an example, if I can curl
200 for 10 reps at 2/4 the TUT is 60 seconds, now if I put 200 on the
bar and do faster reps at rep speed of 1/2 I might fail at 15 reps,
but remember the rep speed is faster, and that 15 reps TUT only adds
up to 45 second I fail at compeered to the 60 seconds at 2/4 rep
speed, see what I am getting at, so which is best ??? To fail faster
with a faster rep speed, or to be able to continue longer with a
slower rep speed.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3540426035/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0781730619/

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.physiol.66
.052102.134444?journalCode=physiol

http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200002000-00011.htm?
index=1&results=1&count=10&searchid=1&nav=search&database=lwwovft

Or some might like to read, Fibre Types in Skeletal Muscles (Advances
in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology), which is a summary of all
the current knowledge (circa 2004) on fiber types and how they
respond to different physical stimuli and disease, Or maybe read the
paper on the Cytokine hypothesis of overtraining.

John wrote,
heavy weights, they "cannot" use them with high intensity
without "warming up" the support tissue, muscle tissue, joints,
circulatory system, and other metabolic support.You can only start at
the top, if you are using "relatively" light weights, that don't
stress the tissues enough to create a chance of injury. I'm sorry,
but that is how it is.You have brainwashed yourself into thinking
that if you train one set to failure you shouldn't be able to do
another set. That simply is not true. If it was true, I wouldn't have
been able to train that way, and I did, and I did it beyond an age
where it should have reasonable to do so.
Which strength would you rather have. A type of strength that is
easily used up and deteriorates quickly? or a type of strength that
allows maximum repeated effort? Hmmm tough decision.
Wayne replied,
You cant you heavy weights for reps with out warming up, but  am
sorry John BUT I CAN STOP. YOU can only use relatively light weights
if YOU start at the top, I HOWEVER can use HEAVY weights if I start
at the top, as I said I use roughly 85% of my one rep max for say 10
reps at 2/4.

John wrote,
Which strength would you rather have. A type of strength that is
easily used up and deteriorates quickly? or a type of strength that
allows maximum repeated effort? Hmmm tough decision.

Wayne wrote,
As you can see my highest strength can be used instantly and is does
not at all deteriorate with the next sets which are done in a matter
on 20 seconds, it's all a matter of our different muscle fibers,
these is no need to argue, we just have different muscle types, I
think the majority of people would far rather my type of strength.

For a matter of interest, and I know you will be honest, what is your
one rep max on the pulldown ???

I have in no way brainwashed myself into thinking that if you train
one set to failure you shouldn't be able to do another set, as you
know I do one set sometime and sometimes three to four sets, this is
just not the case.

if you have only experimented on your body, you can't say your way
will work for all.

I know this is a bit different to what we are talking about, but ever
seen a Siberian tiger, Siberian Males will reach a weight of 190 -
306 kilograms (419 - 675 pounds) and may reach a length of 4 meters,
and the fastest of the cats the cheetah, I have seen these from a
laying down position, go to a full speed and for quite some time to
catch their pray, without any kind of warm up and without any pulled
muscles. also Arthur tested his Gorilla Mickey on strength exercises
without any warm up, and as we know Rather is one of the best in the
writing on exercise, please see Nautilus bulletins 1, 2 and 3,
anybody here ever write anything like those ??? he was a genius, he
got millions into the gym.


Wayne wrote:

> Hi there all,
>
> I think Calves can take a lot more sets and reps because of their
low
> motor unit/fiber ratio and ST fibers, Ellington recommends 1x50 reps
> done at 2/4 done twice with the same weight.
>
> I have changed my experiment, I am now starting today, going to do
> what John said he does for his calf's, for one leg on the leg press,
> which is (hope this is right John) 1/2 rep speed, 5 sets of 15 reps,
> and then 5 sets of 10, with the same weight for each set and with 1
> min rest in-between sets.

John Casler writes:

Below is what I posted verbatim (can be found in the archives) that I
do for
my calves, and I further stated that I "do not" work one calf at a
time in
the standing calf exercise.

Wayne wrote,
Ok John, I must also state John did not suggest me do one legged calf
raisers, it was my doing, as to do the experiment, but they are one
legged calf raisers on leg press.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Calf Routine is simple (You are going to hate this)

I do:

Standing Calf Raises 670# x 10-15 reps for 10 sets with 30-40 seconds
in
between each set.

The first 5 sets are in the 12-15 rep range and the last 5 are
failure at
around 10 reps.

Reps are perfromed with a rather quick concentric (1 sec) and a slow
eccentric (3-4 sec)

Care is taken to go to the "full stretch" and full stop at the bottom
of
each rep.

Knees are fully extended but not locked.  Focus is on pushing with the
"inside ball of the foot" (big toe side)

No "knee kick" is involved.  Hams and glutes are rigidly tensioned to
aid
activation of the gastrocnemius which crosses the knee joint.

After each set, I walk several steps to let the congestion and pain
dissipate, and walk back into the machine and briskly begin the next
set.

The standing calf machine should be entered with the head up and the
back
slightly arched with a rigid torso (if you are using any kind of
weight).
Hands should be holding the central shaft in front of you (that runs
from
the shoulder pads to the main machine) and you should be
pulling "down" on
that shaft to create tension in the lats, which in turn supports the
lower
back.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wayne wrote:

> The other leg I will be doing what John recommends for other body
> parts, but John does not recommend this for the calf's, but it will
> be fun to try, which is 30 reps then I think John rests for 60 to 90
> seconds, then 15 reps, rest 60 to 90 seconds, then 10 reps, all at a
> 1/2 reps speed, and going to complete failure on the last set, and
> having some forced reps. I have had a break in go at both to get the
> weights right, and found that on faster reps than I usually do, I
> needed less weight than I thought, and was pleasantly sore,hate my
> stubborn calf's, hope I can add anything to them hehehe.

John Casler writes:

I would think that reps above 15 reps for calves would limit the load
too
much (for me anyhow)

Wayne wrote,
Why would reps above 15 limit the load, what about your 30 reps on
other body parts, would that not to limit the load even more, I
thought this was meant to be a warm up set, or do you not do warm up
sets on your calf's, and if not why, you seem so convinced of them on
other body parts ???

John Casler writes:
Again I also want to continue to straighten out, that I "do not" just
suggest people train with 30 reps.

The 20 rep and 30 reps sets were the result of taking what I was
failing
with for 10-15 reps, and simply HIT'ing each set harder.

Wayne wrote,
So John, seems you have only just stated to work to full failure,
cant really believe that as I imagine you have worked to failure
years ago, as you said the 30 reps were the result of taking what you
was failing at on 10 to 15 reps, that seems to me that you was not
working to compete failure at all, well not seems to me that you was
not working to complete failure at all, you was not working to
complete failure, as you had another 15 reps in you, not putting you
down here at all just stating the facts as I read them ok, as when I
go for say 12 reps working at 2/4 it is to complete failure, and
there would be no way I could get one more rep, but 15 more ???.

John Casler writes:
Eventually I arrived at 20-30 reps in some exercises and not only
that, I
then stacked on even more weight.

Wayne wrote,
Cant believe you could have guessed your weight that wrong for any
exercise, If I had guessed my weights that wrong for my 10 to 15 reps
I would have, put a big extra amount of weight on the bar in my next
session, with would have brought the reps down to the right amount of
reps, but I would never guess any weights that far out, again I am
not putting you down at all John just reading what you are writing,
maybe I have it all wrong, sorry if I have, could you please explain,

So it is not some system, where I decided I should do 20-30 reps, it
just
happened as a result of pushing the envelope.

The reason I kept the reps high for the initial set then, is because
the
20-30 reps sets led to huge increases in my lower rep sets and I
needed the
high rep sets as a "warm up", and as "staging" stimulus for my CNS
and
metabolic systems.

I get the idea, that some might think I just come along and suggest
trying
30 reps.  That is not the case.  It was an evolutionary (and for me
revolutionary) process of setting PR's on every set, every workout.

Wayne wrote,
Yes it was revolutionary for you John, and wish you all the luck, by
the way what did all the greats you have known curl.

I do suggest however that you eventually attempt Rep Maximums for
most of
your major exercises all the way from 1 reps to 30 reps.  You will
learn a
lot about what HIT means at various levels, not just 10-12 reps.

Wayne wrote,
As most here know, I use different routines for four to six weeks,
high reps low reps, double double, yes I did mean double double pre-
exhaustion, super slow 10/5 for 2 sets of 4 reps with HEAVY weight
and so on.
I really enjoyed you 30, 15 and 10 reps on my calf's John that you
did not recommend, and added another set of 10 reps, at the end, with
a full stop on both sides.

Hope I did not sound aggressive to you John, as I did not mean to be,
as I know you are a very clever guy and respect you, just a friendly
debate ok, hope we can learn from each other, my friends love hearing
your story's of the times you trained with the greats.

Thank you Wayne

Miguel wrote:

On Wed., July the 27th:

  Smith-machine squats 225x10, 275x10, 315 aborted

Lying leg curls 95x13, 115x9, 135x6

Seated calf raises 225x15*, 270x12*, 315x6, 360x4*

Smith squats sucked, most of the tension went to my glutes and knees.
Both sets felt the same in spite of the 50-pound difference; I was
mostly straining against the guide rails.  I saw no point in going to
315 and hurting my knees.  Both sets well below parallel.  I had never
squatted this much on a Smith, but I won't call these crappy sets PRs.
Quad DOMS:  Yes.

John Casler writes:

Hi Miguel,

Looks like you are still "searching around" a bit on legs.  Why is it that
you don't do regular squats?  Do I recall a "hip pain"??

Unless it is a serious injury, this might be a good time to "work through"
the injury, by starting "very light" and making steady "but slow" progress.
Do you have a Power Rack to Squat in?

If the injury is not serious, start with the bar if you have to, and use
back arched, head up, low bar form.


Miguel wrote:

Leg curls not much better, the Atlantis machine gives terribly uneven
resistance.  At the point of full contraction, the roller pads just fall
on the back of your legs, zero resistance.  I did manage to annihilate
my hams, but I have no idea how the weight in this machine correlates to
the weight in my usual machine.  Hence, no records noted here either.
One important thing, this machine is unilateral and it let me know that
my left ham is weaker than the right.  Odd, since I am a lefty.  Ham
DOMS:  Yes.

John Casler writes:

Does your gym have any of these?  http://www.aborigionals.com/

If so, and you can do squats, the "reverse squat", (aka Casler Crunch) would
be the best exercise to "superset" with squats.

DO NOT use a weightlifting belt for squats.

I would then superset the seated calves with leg curls if you feel
necessary.

As far as the "weaker" leg in the leg curl, I would start each set with a
single rep with the weak leg only, then use both legs for the rest.  Stop
the set when either fails, to equalize the strength levels.

Miguel wrote:

On Thurs., July the 28th:

Cable rows 200x15*, 225x6*, 250x5*.  All sets done with straps.  Lat
DOMS:  Yes.

Machine inclines 225x20*, 315x8*, 335x3*, then out of curiosity 365x2*,
405x1*.

Bench press 225x1* easy.  I could have done 2-3 here.  Pec DOMS:  Yes.

  12 personal records overall this week.  Time to start slowing down rate
of progression; I know I'm being overeager but I wanted to get to where
the going really does get tough.

John Casler writes:

WOW!!! that is what I like to see. PR's galore.

It is wise not to proceed too fast, but you will find that each workout you
"WILL" be able to make the rep increase in most every set, for some time.
Don't think that your progress will not happen, for it will.  Keep weight
jumps small like 2.5 - 5 pounds on most exercises.

Adding 10# a month to your bench or pulldown will yield 60# in 6 months.
Get ready to be stronger than you have ever imagined you could be.

Keep you motivation high, let's get your exercises consistent, and make your
goals and PR's.  You're gonna freak out at your potential.

Good Job!

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

Wayne wrote:

> Hi there all,
>
> I think Calves can take a lot more sets and reps because of their low
> motor unit/fiber ratio and ST fibers, Ellington recommends 1x50 reps
> done at 2/4 done twice with the same weight.
>
> I have changed my experiment, I am now starting today, going to do
> what John said he does for his calf's, for one leg on the leg press,
> which is (hope this is right John) 1/2 rep speed, 5 sets of 15 reps,
> and then 5 sets of 10, with the same weight for each set and with 1
> min rest in-between sets.

John Casler writes:

Below is what I posted verbatim (can be found in the archives) that I do for
my calves, and I further stated that I "do not" work one calf at a time in
the standing calf exercise.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Calf Routine is simple (You are going to hate this)

I do:

Standing Calf Raises 670# x 10-15 reps for 10 sets with 30-40 seconds in
between each set.

The first 5 sets are in the 12-15 rep range and the last 5 are failure at
around 10 reps.

Reps are perfromed with a rather quick concentric (1 sec) and a slow
eccentric (3-4 sec)

Care is taken to go to the "full stretch" and full stop at the bottom of
each rep.

Knees are fully extended but not locked.  Focus is on pushing with the
"inside ball of the foot" (big toe side)

No "knee kick" is involved.  Hams and glutes are rigidly tensioned to aid
activation of the gastrocnemius which crosses the knee joint.

After each set, I walk several steps to let the congestion and pain
dissipate, and walk back into the machine and briskly begin the next set.

The standing calf machine should be entered with the head up and the back
slightly arched with a rigid torso (if you are using any kind of weight).
Hands should be holding the central shaft in front of you (that runs from
the shoulder pads to the main machine) and you should be pulling "down" on
that shaft to create tension in the lats, which in turn supports the lower
back.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wayne wrote:

> The other leg I will be doing what John recommends for other body
> parts, but John does not recommend this for the calf's, but it will
> be fun to try, which is 30 reps then I think John rests for 60 to 90
> seconds, then 15 reps, rest 60 to 90 seconds, then 10 reps, all at a
> 1/2 reps speed, and going to complete failure on the last set, and
> having some forced reps. I have had a break in go at both to get the
> weights right, and found that on faster reps than I usually do, I
> needed less weight than I thought, and was pleasantly sore,hate my
> stubborn calf's, hope I can add anything to them hehehe.

John Casler writes:

I would think that reps above 15 reps for calves would limit the load too
much (for me anyhow)

Again I also want to continue to straighten out, that I "do not" just
suggest people train with 30 reps.

The 20 rep and 30 reps sets were the result of taking what I was failing
with for 10-15 reps, and simply HIT'ing each set harder.

Eventually I arrived at 20-30 reps in some exercises and not only that, I
then stacked on even more weight.

So it is not some system, where I decided I should do 20-30 reps, it just
happened as a result of pushing the envelope.

The reason I kept the reps high for the initial set then, is because the
20-30 reps sets led to huge increases in my lower rep sets and I needed the
high rep sets as a "warm up", and as "staging" stimulus for my CNS and
metabolic systems.

I get the idea, that some might think I just come along and suggest trying
30 reps.  That is not the case.  It was an evolutionary (and for me
revolutionary) process of setting PR's on every set, every workout.

I do suggest however that you eventually attempt Rep Maximums for most of
your major exercises all the way from 1 reps to 30 reps.  You will learn a
lot about what HIT means at various levels, not just 10-12 reps.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

For the first time since October, 1999 I've banned a member from the
HIT Digest (that was following the move to what was then e-groups for
those that don't remember).

LISTEN UP EVERYONE -- I MEAN IT.

I have been moderating this group for about 10 years; at this point I
don't even remember exactly.  This group is FREE and I do it to help
my friends at Cyberpump and because it is my way to give back for the
benefits I have received from HIT.  The rules here are simple and I
expect everyone to follow them.  This group was formed for a reason -
to give people a place to discuss the iron game in a moderated
environment without personal attacks and nonsense (other than some of
the proposed training schemes ;) ).

Personally I don't understand why people want to debate the issues
here (figure out your own training method and get to it) but people
do and that is fine with me.

I WILL NOT SPEND TIME AND/OR EFFORT TO VERIFY EVERY (OR ANY) CLAIMS
ABOUT PEOPLE AND WHETHER THEY USED STERIODS OR OTHER PERFORMANCE-
ENHANCING DRUGS, BEAT THEIR SPOUSE, WROTE BAD CHECKS OR ANYTHING
ELSE.  I HAVE NOT DEVOTED MY LIFE TO THE HISTORY OF THE IRON GAME AND
EVERY PERSON WHO PARTICIPATED IN IT (because let's face it, I bet the
strongest people in the world are unknown).

IF YOU TRY TO POST SOMETHING ABOUT A PERSON OR INSTITUTION THAT IS OR
COULD BE CONSIDERED LIABLE I WILL BOUNCE THE MESSAGE UNLESS IT HAS
REAL PROOF CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE POST.  REAL PROOF IS NOT
HEARSAY; IT IS HARD EVIDENCE.  IF YOU CAN"T CONSTRUCT YOR MESSAGE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULE I CN'T AND WON"T HELP YOU.

IF YOU BADGER ME ABOUT BOUNCING A MESSAGE YOU WILL BE BANNED AND NOT
ALLOWED TO POST ANY MORE MESSAGES.  I don't appreciate being called
all sorts of things be someone who does not understand the above.

If you don't like this approach, I am sorry, but go form another
group and post there.

I AM NOT KIDDING.

Back to the discussion.....

Wally, I think that the possibility of "converting" fast-twitch to slow-
twitch is something most people don't agree on. But one guy whose
program I have worked with believes that you Can make Type I
fibers "act more like Type IIB fibers." He believes that one of the
reasons why some hardgainers have a problem getting big is the lousey
combination of muscle fibers they are "gifted" with. His program
focuses on training the Type IIA and Type IIB fibers , getting the
IIA's to take on more of the IIB characteristics, namely the ability to
get big.

The program was a 3-way split program. You're doing 4 exercises only
each WO, and the total sets is between 20-24 per session, with an hour
to 1 1/4 hrs in the gym. (Use L-Glutamine to help protect muscle before
going to the gym.)It goes aprox. like this:

2 warm-up sets - 8 reps
4 heavy sets:
  1) 6-8 reps
  2) 4-6 reps
  3) 2-4 reps
  4) 1-2 reps
a burnout set to failure, (and if that's not enough...)
a Superset to failure - 8-12 reps

His belief was that the different rep ranges hit all 3 of the various
muscle fiber types. He has thousands of hardgainers that this works
for, so in spite of my experience with HIT and HG, I gave it a shot.
Regretably. I lost five pounds of muscle that month because I need
frequency, and there is No way I can do anything more than a 2-way
split. I've now proved this to myself for the Final time. Well,
actually - I look forward to a day when I might be able to do a split
program, maybe like what Miguel is doing, but I'm not going for it now.
That's for sure.

-michael

Impy, maybe the "P" is for Paramount? We have their stuff at my gym.
I use it/like it. I love their low-row machine. Never did much for
me, but I loved it. lol. Now I do chins, but their stuff seems good
to this guy. Have fun.

Wayne. You go man! Good luck on that experiment. And if you can
figure out how to grow muscle without eatting more and being willing
to pack on a little lard, then Please let me know. I'd sure like to
save some moula on my food bill. Oh, man - would I!

Miguel, I'm so afraid for you - doing squats on Mr. Smith's torture
machine! I so F'ed up my knees on that thing. Couldn't SQT for a
whole year. Hope you have a good reason to be doing that. But I guess
you are under John's care, so I will leave well-enough alone.

As for me, I had an O.K. WO tonight. Had to keep reminding myself to
work fast and get intense. I think I started out kinda bad by having
too much weight on my dealift bar. It's funny: I've worked this
program three times before and I'm still learning how to fine-tune it
to work for me.

I'm learning a lot of stuff here. It's helping me. Thanks for being
here, you guys.

Bye.

-michael

So Greg,

I've been looking at the John Christy site today. He has a lot of
stuff there that I liked, some stuff that I'm pretty sure wouldn't
work for me, but really a lot of Good stuff, and a few new ideas for
me.

He's pretty big on cardio. Hmmm. I have read a lot of different info
on this subject. I don't do cardio when I'm trying to bulk up, but I
do like it, so I really look forward to cardio when I'm dieting. Ya
know, some people say to not do cardio or your legs won't grow, and
one guy who trains Hardgainers-only says it's absolutely out of the
question for hardgainers. I know for certain that I'm too bushed
after a WO, but the truth is, I may not mind doing it on an off-day,
especially if it could help keep the fat gains lower while bulking
up.

So there's an interest here in doing cardio year-round, but a little
bit of fear of it too. One thing I always do when I'm reading stuff
is try to figure out who the character is that's writing the thing -
is He a hardgainer?  I HAVE to do that or I can be frustrating myself
with a lot of incorrect-for-me advise. And, who does this guy train -
big guys or scrawney cats like me? For example, I can learn "some
stuff" by reading Mentzer, but I have to remember that he was a
naturally gifted athlete, really big, and on drugs, so I need to be
really, really careful what kind of advise I take from someone like
him - much of it won't apply. This guy sounds like a naturally
athletic/mesomorph-type, and when I see how huge the guys are at his
gym, I start wondering how much of this cardio-advise I should be
following. Catch my drift?

So, maybe you can tell me, (or anyone else if they can) if there's
any evidence that cardio is helpful for a hardgainer. Maybe you have
personal experience with this? I mean, if it is, then where does
everyone get the advise that it hurts leg development?

I've gota say that one of the best things about being here for me has
been looking at so many sites that the different guys have
recommended on here.

Thanks,

-mal













--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Parker" <gparker@i...> wrote:
> Dave - check out www.totalstrength.info. John Christy has some
pretty
> good info regarding training
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:58:54 -0000
>
> From: "daveroesener" <daveroesener@y...>
>
> Subject: Re: Wow, Dave!
>
> Thanks
>
> Thats the good news. But most of those gains were made over 10 years
> ago.
>
> Since then it's been a huge struggle. And youw would think being as
> skinny as I am I'd have 6 pack abs. But any attempts to put on more
> mass, land in right in the abdominals.
>
> No fun huh.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "michaelalorden"
>
> <michaelalorden@y...> wrote:
>
> > Dave,
>
> >
>
> > That's incredible. If you started out that small and put that
much
>
> > muscle on...I'm impressed!
>
> >
>
> > Big Round of Applause for Dave. *********** (those are claps)
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the compliments. Yeah, I think consistency is pretty
>
> > important. I think it's dogpile.com.
>
> >
>
> > -ml
>
> >
>
> > P.S. It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of
>
> the
>
> > fight in the dog!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sarn says:

We must all stop talking this complete ridiculous nonsence about converting
muscle fiber types to other muscle fiber types.

YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

You can maximize what you are born with, but IT IS IMNPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE
FIBER COMPOSITION OF A MUSCLE.

That is, fast cannot go to slow, and slow cannot go to fast.

You can atrophy muscle fibers by incorrect training protocols for that
particualr muscle fiber, BUT THESE DO NOT CHANGE.

It is like hanging from a bar, trying to make you're self taller.

The only way that I know that this can happen is if you used a viral vector,
which would change you're genes.

And I am not sure if this can be done, or how it is done.

We all should actually see some news about this in the 2008 Olympics.

Mark my words.

THEN, and ONLY THEN will we have interesting things to talk about.

Oh yes, and of course, this extreme post.

However, one thing that I am interested in is if a heart muscle can enlarge
through training.

My brother and I have a kickboxer freind, who is good at his sport, and had some
sort of analysis done on his heart.

It was as large as a man of 7 feet six inches.

Now, I do not know, but I would bet money on it, that this is a result of
genetics.

I am also pretty sure that hyperplasia is balloney.

People do not really want to accept just how bigger part genetics plays in the
sports of powerlifting, Olympic weightlifting, bodybuilding, arm wrestling,
shottputting, marathoning.

If I were to have a sport alloted to my genetics, it would most probably be that
of a middle distance runner.

Any thoughts on these bold comments?

-----Sarn.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
   Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

good post wayne, but are you really lucky


--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegr@l...> wrote:
> Hi there all,
>
> With some simple math's, you will see Casey did not gain all he and
> Arthur said he did, because he could not have lost 17 pounds of
fat.
> Casey started the experiment at 168 pounds and cut, if anybody has
> seen the photos of Casey just before the Colorado, he could never
> have 17 pounds of fat to lose.
>
> I have the Nautilus Bulletin 3, and there are chapters on the
> Colorado, which are only available in this bulletin.
>
> I now know he started at a bodyweight 166.87 pounds, and a body fat
> of 13.8%, and finished at a bodyweight of 212.15 pounds, and the
> study says he lost 17 pounds of fat???.
>
> But looking at the before and after photos he did not seem to have
> lost, hardily any fat, if you do some simple math's/calculations,
> taking his starting weight and body fat of 13.8% at 166.87 pounds,
> 13.8% from 166.87 pounds = 23.02806 pounds of fat on his body, at
the
> start of the experiment.
>
> now take 17 pounds of fat he had lost from 23.02806 pounds of fat
> that was on his body at the start of the experiment, 17 pounds
from
> 23.02806  = 6.02806 pounds left on his body at the end of the
> experiment, so at his finishing weight of 212.15, he had 6.3645
> pounds on his body, which = 3% body fat. But there was hardly any
> change in the before and after photos which leaves???
>
> Hope you all follow the math's, I didn't, hehehe, only joking.
>
>
> If he lost the claimed amount of fat his ending body fat percentage
> would have to be close to 2.5-3%. However he obviously wasn't near
> that body fat level. If he lost no fat during the period then his
> body fat percentage would have reduced from 14% to approx 11% due
to
> his higher bodyweight at the end. I don't think he is really any
more
> defined at the end than at the beginning, so you can reduce the
> amount of muscle claimed to be gained by 17lbs.which leaves the
45lbs
> weight gained,
>
> As far as I am concerned Casey gained 45.72 pounds of muscle, in
122
> sets = just over two hours of actual total training time in 28
days,
> in the Colorado experiments, in which 45.72 pounds in just over 2
> hours is still in itself is a great/remarkable achievement.
>
> the only way this seems to work out is there are more fat in a
> persons muscle that you cant really see, and there is in a pound of
> muscle about 7% fat, so that means a 100 pound of pure muscle is 7%
> fat, ???
>
>
> I got word from Casey himself, and Casey says that 14% of his total
> weight of 168 pounds was BF, the day before the Colorado, and 7% BF
> at the end, so if you take 14% from 168 pounds = 23.52 pounds of
fat,
> he had on his body before the experiment, now take the 17 pounds of
> fat he had lost from the experiment from 23.52 pounds = 6.53 pounds
> left on his body, after the experiment.
>
> He weighed 168 before the Colorado, and after the Colorado he added
> 45.28 pounds in bodyweight = 213.28 pounds take off 7% BF which
Casey
> stated he was after the experiment = 14.9296 pounds of body fat he
> was still carrying after the experiment,
>
> Now if he was 14% BF at the start which = 23.52 pounds of BF, and
> after the experiment 7% = 14.9296 pounds of BF, it dose not add up
to
> Casey losing 17 pounds of BF, as if you take 17 pounds of BF from
his
> starting 23.52 pounds of BF, it should add down to 6.52 but it does
> not add down to that at all.
>
> Bet no one can follow this, not sure I do only joking, the maths
are
> right if you read it a couple of time.
>
>
> After all he had gone thought, was still quite strong standing
press
> 160 pounds for eight reps, dips 12 reps with 50 pounds.
>
> It also states Casey's starting body fat was 13.8% Arthur's was
6.3%,
> there were also 16 Colorado state university students measured for
> comparison, five other subjects from Florida, members of the party,
> brought by Arthur to Colorado were measured, for body fat.
>
> So every thing seems to be done spot on, so why is it that now one
> has noticed the not much difference in body fat on the before and
> after photos, and the simple math's I have done before and some
other
> here in the forum, big questions???
>
> One more thing I just can't see Arthur slipping up the flaws we
have
> found in the experiment, why the frigging hell has no body see this
> before, maybe it was just one of them, why I should have worked
that
> out before, but no body did???
>
> Anybody got any suggestions to try and change mine and other
people's
> minds, as facts are facts.
>
>
> Also here are one or two things from Casey book,
> Casey was as most know, was involved in a serious accident January
> 1973 at work and lost most of one finger as a result, and almost
died
> from an allergic reaction to an antitetanus injection. His best
> bodyweight was I think before that was 200.5 pounds. Thus he was
very
> ill, normal eating was down and he did not train for four months,
and
> lost 33.63 pounds.
>
> Before the experiment was done (I imagine a month before the
> experiment) he was put on a hard diet by Arthur (I know this as
it's
> from his self published book, which Casey himself wrote) of only
800
> calories per day, and I suspect water restricted too, and there was
a
> large pay reward at the end also.
>
> He was eating on the experiment 500 grams of protein a day and
carbs
> were keeping to a minimal.
>
> Casey never did extra sets in YMCA in the Colorado, he was rested
for
> three months he would not need any extra sets, all that popping
down
> to the YMCA was made up, by jealous people, whom do not like HIT,
as
> HIT is the fastest way to stack on muscle, and I don't think the
> Colorado was at all about money, it was just Arthur getting the
upper
> hand on all the other styles out at the time, and to put one over
on
> weider big time. I have talked to him by e-mail and it's all
written
> by him in his new book, lets get the facts right.
>
> Thank you Wayne

Hi there all,

With some simple math's, you will see Casey did not gain all he and
Arthur said he did, because he could not have lost 17 pounds of fat.
Casey started the experiment at 168 pounds and cut, if anybody has
seen the photos of Casey just before the Colorado, he could never
have 17 pounds of fat to lose.

I have the Nautilus Bulletin 3, and there are chapters on the
Colorado, which are only available in this bulletin.

I now know he started at a bodyweight 166.87 pounds, and a body fat
of 13.8%, and finished at a bodyweight of 212.15 pounds, and the
study says he lost 17 pounds of fat???.

But looking at the before and after photos he did not seem to have
lost, hardily any fat, if you do some simple math's/calculations,
taking his starting weight and body fat of 13.8% at 166.87 pounds,
13.8% from 166.87 pounds = 23.02806 pounds of fat on his body, at the
start of the experiment.

now take 17 pounds of fat he had lost from 23.02806 pounds of fat
that was on his body at the start of the experiment, 17 pounds  from
23.02806  = 6.02806 pounds left on his body at the end of the
experiment, so at his finishing weight of 212.15, he had 6.3645
pounds on his body, which = 3% body fat. But there was hardly any
change in the before and after photos which leaves???

Hope you all follow the math's, I didn't, hehehe, only joking.


If he lost the claimed amount of fat his ending body fat percentage
would have to be close to 2.5-3%. However he obviously wasn't near
that body fat level. If he lost no fat during the period then his
body fat percentage would have reduced from 14% to approx 11% due to
his higher bodyweight at the end. I don't think he is really any more
defined at the end than at the beginning, so you can reduce the
amount of muscle claimed to be gained by 17lbs.which leaves the 45lbs
weight gained,

As far as I am concerned Casey gained 45.72 pounds of muscle, in 122
sets = just over two hours of actual total training time in 28 days,
in the Colorado experiments, in which 45.72 pounds in just over 2
hours is still in itself is a great/remarkable achievement.

the only way this seems to work out is there are more fat in a
persons muscle that you cant really see, and there is in a pound of
muscle about 7% fat, so that means a 100 pound of pure muscle is 7%
fat, ???


I got word from Casey himself, and Casey says that 14% of his total
weight of 168 pounds was BF, the day before the Colorado, and 7% BF
at the end, so if you take 14% from 168 pounds = 23.52 pounds of fat,
he had on his body before the experiment, now take the 17 pounds of
fat he had lost from the experiment from 23.52 pounds = 6.53 pounds
left on his body, after the experiment.

He weighed 168 before the Colorado, and after the Colorado he added
45.28 pounds in bodyweight = 213.28 pounds take off 7% BF which Casey
stated he was after the experiment = 14.9296 pounds of body fat he
was still carrying after the experiment,

Now if he was 14% BF at the start which = 23.52 pounds of BF, and
after the experiment 7% = 14.9296 pounds of BF, it dose not add up to
Casey losing 17 pounds of BF, as if you take 17 pounds of BF from his
starting 23.52 pounds of BF, it should add down to 6.52 but it does
not add down to that at all.

Bet no one can follow this, not sure I do only joking, the maths are
right if you read it a couple of time.


After all he had gone thought, was still quite strong standing press
160 pounds for eight reps, dips 12 reps with 50 pounds.

It also states Casey's starting body fat was 13.8% Arthur's was 6.3%,
there were also 16 Colorado state university students measured for
comparison, five other subjects from Florida, members of the party,
brought by Arthur to Colorado were measured, for body fat.

So every thing seems to be done spot on, so why is it that now one
has noticed the not much difference in body fat on the before and
after photos, and the simple math's I have done before and some other
here in the forum, big questions???

One more thing I just can't see Arthur slipping up the flaws we have
found in the experiment, why the frigging hell has no body see this
before, maybe it was just one of them, why I should have worked that
out before, but no body did???

Anybody got any suggestions to try and change mine and other people's
minds, as facts are facts.


Also here are one or two things from Casey book,
Casey was as most know, was involved in a serious accident January
1973 at work and lost most of one finger as a result, and almost died
from an allergic reaction to an antitetanus injection. His best
bodyweight was I think before that was 200.5 pounds. Thus he was very
ill, normal eating was down and he did not train for four months, and
lost 33.63 pounds.

Before the experiment was done (I imagine a month before the
experiment) he was put on a hard diet by Arthur (I know this as it's
from his self published book, which Casey himself wrote) of only 800
calories per day, and I suspect water restricted too, and there was a
large pay reward at the end also.

He was eating on the experiment 500 grams of protein a day and carbs
were keeping to a minimal.

Casey never did extra sets in YMCA in the Colorado, he was rested for
three months he would not need any extra sets, all that popping down
to the YMCA was made up, by jealous people, whom do not like HIT, as
HIT is the fastest way to stack on muscle, and I don't think the
Colorado was at all about money, it was just Arthur getting the upper
hand on all the other styles out at the time, and to put one over on
weider big time. I have talked to him by e-mail and it's all written
by him in his new book, lets get the facts right.

Thank you Wayne

On Wed., July the 27th:



Smith-machine squats 225x10, 275x10, 315 aborted

Lying leg curls 95x13, 115x9, 135x6

Seated calf raises 225x15*, 270x12*, 315x6, 360x4*



Smith squats sucked, most of the tension went to my glutes and knees.
Both sets felt the same in spite of the 50-pound difference; I was
mostly straining against the guide rails.  I saw no point in going to
315 and hurting my knees.  Both sets well below parallel.  I had never
squatted this much on a Smith, but I won't call these crappy sets PRs.
Quad DOMS:  Yes.



Leg curls not much better, the Atlantis machine gives terribly uneven
resistance.  At the point of full contraction, the roller pads just fall
on the back of your legs, zero resistance.  I did manage to annihilate
my hams, but I have no idea how the weight in this machine correlates to
the weight in my usual machine.  Hence, no records noted here either.
One important thing, this machine is unilateral and it let me know that
my left ham is weaker than the right.  Odd, since I am a lefty.  Ham
DOMS:  Yes.



Seated calf raises, three records.  Soleus DOMS:  Yes.



On Thurs., July the 28th:



Cable rows 200x15*, 225x6*, 250x5*.  All sets done with straps.  Lat
DOMS:  Yes.

Machine inclines 225x20*, 315x8*, 335x3*, then out of curiosity 365x2*,
405x1*.

Bench press 225x1* easy.  I could have done 2-3 here.  Pec DOMS:  Yes.



12 personal records overall this week.  Time to start slowing down rate
of progression; I know I'm being overeager but I wanted to get to where
the going really does get tough.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi there all,

I think Calves can take a lot more sets and reps because of their low
motor unit/fiber ratio and ST fibers, Ellington recommends 1x50 reps
done at 2/4 done twice with the same weight.

I have changed my experiment, I am now starting today, going to do
what John said he does for his calf's, for one leg on the leg press,
which is (hope this is right John) 1/2 rep speed, 5 sets of 15 reps,
and then 5 sets of 10, with the same weight for each set and with 1
min rest in-between sets.

The other leg I will be doing what John recommends for other body
parts, but John does not recommend this for the calf's, but it will
be fun to try, which is 30 reps then I think John rests for 60 to 90
seconds, then 15 reps, rest 60 to 90 seconds, then 10 reps, all at a
1/2 reps speed, and going to complete failure on the last set, and
having some forced reps. I have had a break in go at both to get the
weights right, and found that on faster reps than I usually do, I
needed less weight than I thought, and was pleasantly sore,hate my
stubborn calf's, hope I can add anything to them hehehe.

I will be eating my exact same diet, so no Michael whatever gains I
make will be the exercises themselves not more food, but I can see
where you are coming from, and will measure my calf's at the star of
the program and at the end, and lucky for me I am a man of habit, and
my weeks eating is very varied but roughly the same each week. also I
check my bodyfat, each week, with a bodyfat analyzer, and if done at
the exact same time, and with the same situation, find them very
accurate.

Thank you Wayne

I will
Hey Wayne,

I have a question for you. See, I'm reading what you and John have
been talking about, and I don't have any comment on what's going to
work better - your idea or his. I do know that calves are tough for a
lot of men. But here's the really important thing "to me": When you
do what you are doing, are you measuring your calves at the end of
every month so see if you're really putting size on them? For me,
that's what's important, unless of course you're overeatting and just
putting on fat.

See, I get pretty frustrated when I read a bunch of stuff like - Oh,
do this, and Do that, and I do this, etc. But if I don't know if
someone is putting on size and not overeatting too much, then what am
I to learn from it? Absolutely nothing.

Just curious?

Thanks.

-michael














--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegr@l...> wrote:
> Hi there all,
>
> By the way John, I know you work your calves different, but I have
> stared 30reps rest one min, 15 reps rest one min and then ten reps
> rest one min, one sec up two sec down, all are one legged calf
> raisers one the leg press, it was harder then I thought, but I
expect
> if you trained all my way you would find it very hard, and me all
> your way.
>
> As you can see I am trying your pyramiding up system, but I would
far
> rather pyramid down I have hit very heavy weights this way.
>
> Thank you Wayne
>
>
>
> --- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "John Casler" <bioforce.inc@g...>
> wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> > forgot to say John, when I hit failure after each set I bring the
> other leg
> > in and do another 10 fast reps, think I should do these on yours
> too ??? or
> > do you have another twist. Did a break in 30 and 15 fast rep
style,
> just to
> > get the weights right, I did 1/2 hope that was ok, that is if
your
> up to the
> > experiment, anyway I going to do this, 1x30 calf raise on leg
> press, 1x15
> > one leg calf raise, 1x10 one leg donkey calf raise on machine.
> >
> > John Casler writes:
> >
> > Hi Wayne,  again I am slightly confused to what you are doing,
but
> I don't
> > do 30 reps for calves. and I only use one exercise.
> >
> >
> > Wayne wrote:
> >
> > John you know your pyramiding up system, I said I did not do it
and
> always
> > start at my highest weight, and do drop sets, I lift weights
> relative to my
> > own body weight and I have reached heavy weights, so please don't
> keep
> > saying I have not reached heavy resistance, I could easy say that
> to you, as
> > all you build up sets ARE taking some of your strength, my
initial
> reps are
> > my warm up, only if you live in a cold climate do you need
> elaborate warm
> > ups, however I, in this experiment will try them, I also might
try
> them on
> > arm day ( you say two min in-between set ) Then I will know for
> sure if they
> > make me weaker or stronger.
> >
> > John Casler writes:
> >
> > I'm sorry Wayne but that is how I see it.  First off, when a
person
> reaches
> > heavy weights, they "cannot" use them with high intensity
> without "warming
> > up" the support tissue, muscle tissue, joints, circulatory
system,
> and other
> > metabolic support.
> >
> > You can only start at the top, if you are using "relatively"
light
> weights,
> > that don't stress the tissues enough to create a chance of
injury.
> I'm
> > sorry, but that is how it is.
> >
> > By "your" rules, I would start my pulldowns with over 400# with
no
> warm up.
> > No Thanks.  While I have already started as high as 300# for a
warm
> up, 400+
> > would certainly be foolhardy.
> >
> > Your continued assertion about "using up" my strength, shows that
> you don't
> > understand what strength is.  You are limiting yourself because
> you "think"
> > this is what happens.  A simple check of my weights would
certainly
> prove
> > that I do not "use up all my strength, since any one of my sets
> could be
> > considered reasonably strong by most standards.
> >
> > I have honestly told you I too "did" think the same thing.
> >
> > I simply have proven that you don't have that limitation, because
I
> trained
> > through it.  You claim to know the answer without having tried
it.
> Lets
> > see, I have done both, and you have only done it one way, yet you
> claim to
> > know the answer.
> >
> > The only limitation is your mind.  If you think you'll be weak,
> then you
> > will.  I set out to challenge that, since I wanted to train to
> ultimate
> > intensity density, not "limited" intensity.
> >
> > I have repeatedly stated that I rest to complete recovery, before
> performing
> > the next set.  If your strength is so fleeting that even after
> complete
> > recovery you are "used up" then it would seem that something is
> wrong.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that you can do a hundred sets and still do a
> max, but I
> > have seen that I can do at least 3-4 once I was conditioned for
it.
> >
> > You have brainwashed yourself into thinking that if you train one
> set to
> > failure you shouldn't be able to do another set.  That simply is
> not true.
> > If it was true, I wouldn't have been able to train that way, and
I
> did, and
> > I did it beyond an age where it should have reasonable to do so.
> >
> > Which strength would you rather have.  A type of strength that is
> easily
> > used up and deteriorates quickly?  or a type of strength that
> allows maximum
> > repeated effort?
> >
> > Hmmm tough decision.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Casler
> > TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> > Century City, CA

Hey, guess what? My new workplace just opened a new workout room.
Decent cardio machines. Decent weight machines, and the leg press
goes all the way up to 250 pounds!!!!!!

Okay, maybe I can do one-legged presses? But the rest of the
machines are okay, don't know why anyone would spend time working
their inner or outer thigh, but I digress.

Decent pulldown and row machine, some sort of bench and shoulder
press combo.

Can't remember the name of the manufacturer, but it's pretty decent
stuff. Think it starts with a P.

I asked the gal showing us how to use it, "Will they be adding
weight to the leg press" (250 isn't very much, even for people not
that crazy about lifting). MAN, did she sound like THAT was never
going to happen! YUMPING YIMINY!!!

Have a good weekend ya' all!

Impy

> its not true and ive talked to viator personally.

I just sent off an email to Casey. Let's see if/how he responds.

I could try to call him, but that might be perceived as being rude, or at
least a waste of his time (since I would not be paying him). No, I'll just
let him respond at his leisure if that is his choice. And, if he does
respond to email, at least I will have something in my inbox to
substantiate my contact with him (rather than just claiming I "talked" with
him).

Regardless of his response, I will quote it here.

> he even has a site
> with his phone number on it, but can't remember where.

90% of the time you can "find" a site like this by typing the person's
name-dot-com. In this case it's caseyviator.com.

Before you post something, it's nice to *at least* try to make it appear
that you've taken a few seconds to verify what you're posting.

> That was made up by a volume trainer.

Who? "A" volume trainer? Just someone off the street?

I have also heard from someone who "heard from someone else's brother's
cousin's friend" that Casey was paid to make the statements. All hearsay.

Conspiracy theories and rumors have a funny way of getting out of hand.

> If there
> was no mentzer or jones i would of came up with the one set to failure
> principle myself.

Your gall never ceases to amaze me.

I assume you are aware one set to failure was the *original* method of
training. (Single set, double progression). Read about some of the old-time
strongmen sometime. That's how a lot/most of them trained.

So called street smarts and just the experience of doing something can
go a long way but I had to chuckle since whenever there is a serious
debate on the digest it always comes down to "show me the data" or "
where is the study" etc





Message: 8

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:01:28 -0000

From: "Chris" <chrisrobinson44@...>

Subject: Re: RE: 3 on, one off

good post, sacred. id take street experience of schooling especially

when it comes to training.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey David,

I think that we already kind knew that people's cardiovascular ability
declines with age. That's why the cardio machines tell ya not not push
so hard as you get older.

But I think there's just a whole bunch of stuff that they weren't
looking at that's really important. The endorphins created by exercise
canhelp with the depression  that old folks get, the gym can p-frovide
social contact that can fight lonliness, and if what they do helps them
to stay even the least bitg trimmer, that canhelp offset the likelihood
of what? Heart-attack, stroke, diabetes.

There's a 40-50 yearold female judge around where I live who's
seriously training with weights for competition. I wonder what she
would have to say about this. I'm only 54, but I suppose old-age will
come soon enough. I can't believe that the healthy lifestyle I lead wll
not help me. I have reversed asthma and prostatitis this year. Asthma
alone is a killer.

I find fauylt with almost anthing a bunch of doctors write up.
Especially these days. One thing you have to ask is who's paying these
people to do thyis study? There's a lot of crooked stuff going on these
days in the medical field.

-ml










--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "dmaher1232002" <dmaher1232002@y...>
wrote:
> I've heard a couple of times in the media recent reference to an
> article published by the AHA, see, for example:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_he_me/fit_exercise_aging
>
> regarding aerobic fitness and aging.  I found my way to the article on
> the AHA website  -  from what I (quickly) read, the study seemed
> mostly focussed on aerobic capacity and treadmills, and straight to
> the point.
>
> However, the mainstream media reports carried a strong implication
> that old people exercising was worthless  -  the one I saw on TV here
> had a "myth-busted" tagline.
>
> Thoughts anyone??
>
>
> David.

sorry but your way off there. Almost shocked in what you said


--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, "John Casler" <bioforce.inc@g...>
wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>  > Its very simple. You do warmup sets and then one set to failure
with
> > the heaviest weight you can use in good form to failure and then
the
> > next workout in order to grow with that same exercise and rep
speed is
> > to go up in weight and or reps.
> > See when you go up by one rep that means you have contracted more
> > muscle and therefore if you recover from it you will grow. Simple
stuff
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> Hi Chris, that is "incorrect".
>
> Going "up by one rep" DOES NOT mean you have "contracted more
muscle".
>
> I thought we had already discussed, that at a certain threshold,
all the
> muscle fibers are involved in muscle actions, failure or not.
>
> It simply means you have made progress in extracting more ability
from your
> capacity.
>
> What do you mean when you say we have "contracted more muscle"
anyhow?
>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > If doing 3 sets was the way to go then a 4th set would be better
for
> > the exact same reasons you did a 3rd set over a second set
>
> John Casler writes:
>
> Using that logic, you might only need 1 rep to failure for maximum
results.
> Maximum Potential training results are not as "simple" as you imply.
>
> Building muscle is not always like a trip to your grandmothers.
That is, it
> is not always the same destination and distance.
>
> There is a point between minimum stimulus, and possible over
training, that
> will produce a "compensation.  You incorrectly think it is a single
set to
> failure.  That is not always so.  In fact, that is only so in very
limited
> circumstances.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Casler
> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
> Century City, CA

Since Lance Armstrong's name has come up quite frequently of late, I
thought others might be interested in the following National Geographic
article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong_2.html

A couple interesting quotes:

"At 21, Armstrong had a distinctly average 21 percent muscle-efficiency
rate. Seven years later that rate had increased to 23 percent, a huge leap.

Researchers suggest there may be two ways to improve efficiency through
training.

One way is to train for higher maximum capacity—in other words, to increase
the upper limit of performance (as a sprinter might). Another way is to
train for greater submaximal capacity—to expend less energy for sustained
performance (as a marathoner might).

Armstrong did both".

(Hmmm. Sounds kinda like alternating HIT and volume training :)

"'We don't know exactly what accounted for Armstrong's muscular-efficiency
change,' Coyle said. But he suspects that Armstrong was able to convert
fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow-twitch muscle fibers".

(Hmmm. Is that actually possible?)

good post, sacred. id take street experience of schooling especially
when it comes to training.


--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, sacredsystem <sacredsystem@g...>
wrote:
> On 7/27/05 11:44 AM, "Ken ONeill" <kayoneill@e...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Little's articles are interesting up to a point. Like Mentzer,
he's a
> > cracker barrel philosopher seemingly devoid of both an education
and the
> > blessings of critical, analytical thinking one would expect of a
degreed
> > person.
> As for Little I can't comment due to my limited information on him
and his
> clients, but Mentzer is another story. I have spoken to and met
some of his
> past clients. Results is what one would like to see, and all of
Mentzer's
> clients that I've spoken to saw positive results that were not
being seen
> with other methods. It amazes me that someone would equate wisdom
and
> knowledge with a so called academic education as you stated. In
fact, I
> believe a college degree can dull the gift of common sense. When
someone
> says or thinks against the herd, they become "cracker barrel
philosophers",
> or  "devoid of both an education and the blessings of critical,
analytical
> thinking." However, your naive and silly comments about an
individual who
> honestly preached something he really believed in seems like a slap
in the
> face to critical and honest thinking. I don't agree with everything
Mentzer
> said, but when I don't agree with someone, I have no need or desire
to
> belittle a person. I followed Mentzer's consolidated routine for
six months
> and have produced excellent results. I tried other methods, but
never saw
> the same results. Why would I attack an individuals training
methods if they
> didn't work for me? It just seems very limited and sad that people
have to
> live in such a negative way.
>
>     James aka Sacredsystem

Chris wrote:

  > Its very simple. You do warmup sets and then one set to failure with
> the heaviest weight you can use in good form to failure and then the
> next workout in order to grow with that same exercise and rep speed is
> to go up in weight and or reps.
> See when you go up by one rep that means you have contracted more
> muscle and therefore if you recover from it you will grow. Simple stuff

John Casler writes:

Hi Chris, that is "incorrect".

Going "up by one rep" DOES NOT mean you have "contracted more muscle".

I thought we had already discussed, that at a certain threshold, all the
muscle fibers are involved in muscle actions, failure or not.

It simply means you have made progress in extracting more ability from your
capacity.

What do you mean when you say we have "contracted more muscle" anyhow?


Chris wrote:

> If doing 3 sets was the way to go then a 4th set would be better for
> the exact same reasons you did a 3rd set over a second set

John Casler writes:

Using that logic, you might only need 1 rep to failure for maximum results.
Maximum Potential training results are not as "simple" as you imply.

Building muscle is not always like a trip to your grandmothers.  That is, it
is not always the same destination and distance.

There is a point between minimum stimulus, and possible over training, that
will produce a "compensation.  You incorrectly think it is a single set to
failure.  That is not always so.  In fact, that is only so in very limited
circumstances.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems
Century City, CA

they the hitters would grow doing volume. Its the other way around. Its
the volume trainers that have that have the better genes. Also every
volume trainer that ive ever trained that switched to hit grew more
than ever and all the hit trainers that stopped doing hit and went to
volume did not grow when going back to volume.

  Its very simple. You do warmup sets and then one set to failure with
the heaviest weight you can use in good form to failure and then the
next workout in order to grow with that same exercise and rep speed is
to go up in weight and or reps.
  See when you go up by one rep that means you have contracted more
muscle and therefore if you recover from it you will grow. Simple stuff

  If doing 3 sets was the way to go then a 4th set would be better for
the exact same reasons you did a 3rd set over a second set

its not true and ive talked to viator personally. he even has a site
with his phone number on it, but can't remember where. He did not do
sets at the ymca. That was made up by a volume trainer. Also I do one
set to failure because everything mentzer says is accurate. If there
was no mentzer or jones i would of came up with the one set to failure
principle myself.


--- In Hitdigest@yahoogroups.com, Wally Day <wday@m...> wrote:
> > Both Pete Sisco and John Little harken back
> > to that specious experiment, the one Casey Viator later fessed up
about
> in
> > print - those 60 pounds came from HIT, many additional Volume
sessions at
> a
> > nearby YMCA, and [edited]
>
> Oh, how I remember reading that article (with astonishment and quite
a bit
> of disappointment). Not only did he add some volume sessions in at
the 'Y',
> but he claimed he snuck dips and chins in at the Nautilus center *when
> Jones was out of the room*.
>
> Just goes to show the role genetics plays.

On 7/27/05 11:44 AM, "Ken ONeill" <kayoneill@...> wrote:

>
> Little's articles are interesting up to a point. Like Mentzer,  he's a
> cracker barrel philosopher seemingly devoid of both an education and the
> blessings of critical, analytical thinking one would expect of a degreed
> person.
As for Little I can't comment due to my limited information on him and his
clients, but Mentzer is another story. I have spoken to and met some of his
past clients. Results is what one would like to see, and all of Mentzer's
clients that I've spoken to saw positive results that were not being seen
with other methods. It amazes me that someone would equate wisdom and
knowledge with a so called academic education as you stated. In fact, I
believe a college degree can dull the gift of common sense. When someone
says or thinks against the herd, they become "cracker barrel philosophers",
or  "devoid of both an education and the blessings of critical, analytical
thinking." However, your naive and silly comments about an individual who
honestly preached something he really believed in seems like a slap in the
face to critical and honest thinking. I don't agree with everything Mentzer
said, but when I don't agree with someone, I have no need or desire to
belittle a person. I followed Mentzer's consolidated routine for six months
and have produced excellent results. I tried other methods, but never saw
the same results. Why would I attack an individuals training methods if they
didn't work for me? It just seems very limited and sad that people have to
live in such a negative way.

     James aka Sacredsystem

> Both Pete Sisco and John Little harken back
> to that specious experiment, the one Casey Viator later fessed up about
in
> print - those 60 pounds came from HIT, many additional Volume sessions at
a
> nearby YMCA, and [edited]

Oh, how I remember reading that article (with astonishment and quite a bit
of disappointment). Not only did he add some volume sessions in at the 'Y',
but he claimed he snuck dips and chins in at the Nautilus center *when
Jones was out of the room*.

Just goes to show the role genetics plays.