I started heavy duty this year. So far my lifts went up and so did my size.
Im quite happy with the program, but made some changes:
>I do 2 sets instead of one (Sorry Mike)
>I take only 1 dat of rest, because I feel I recover quite easily with the weights im currently lifting.
>I added abs, obliques and forearms workouts
Overall I keep the volume low and respect the rep ranges Mike said. I go to failure and I think is the main reason why HIT works. Also started loging my sessions on paper, so I can keep track.
What about you, anon?

>>77178226
It's simply more efficient regarding damaging your body to do fewer sets per session. If 1 set is 75% of max stimulation per 24h (Hypothetically but something like that) but 2 sets fucks you twice as much up, 1 set every day is strictly better than 2 sets every other day.

>>77178226
Yeah still doing it. Obviously not Mentzer's shit but closer to Doggcrapp lot of pause sets, using rep totals and partial rest, machine work as the base. It's working but load has to be really optimized to get away with doing that little.

File: mike-mentzer-routine.jpg (91 KB, 894x662)

91 KB JPG

>>77178226
I've been running ideal routine and I like it but after awhile I'm at the point where legs and arms continue to go up but the prescribed chest/back exercises are starting to stall.
I had to move from the original 2 rest days to 3 rest days awhile back which helped but I'm hesitant to go to 5 rest days just yet since 3/4ths of my lifts are still climbing.
I will say that I got much more and immediate progress switching over, I always sorta felt like shit running 3x a week and I don't hate the gym now, just the enormity of the task (fuck doing 350lb LE hold superset backsquats to failure lmao) and I can get a workout done in less than 10 minutes if I'm on the ball and recovered.
Mike's old friend and the guy that ran his phone consults after '97, mr. america john heart has his own HIT routine that bumps up some upper body stuff to 2 sets and I'm thinking about going over to that.
THAT BEING SAID, the ideal routine itself has been solid if not outright clever, arm day being only once every 15 days but the chest/back day happens to work arm muscles as does vice versa like chest on arm day with the superset dips.

>>77178241
Noice, are you a new lifter or juicing? If it's the old actual HD programs you might hit a wall soon, you'll notice it in a multi-week plateau but once you pad in another rest day the progress will start again.

>>77178401
Just realized this image isn't the full ideal routine, I got the most out of supersetting machine shoulder press after side raises close-grip palms-in pulldowns after preacher curls (bb curls are too easy to cheat, forearm/brachialis action)

>>77178401
I follow the ideal routine but with the tweaks I mentioned here>>77178241.
I've been lifting since my teens (I'm almost 30) but only consistently for 2 years. No juice.
To be honest I reduced rest days because to me, lifting is my hobby and passion, so I have the need to do it. Rest days are tedious and boring to me, so I guess I will have to deal with it when the plateaus come

>>77178226
He built his size on higher volume Kek.


He only created this HIT garbage to make money out of lazy and overly minimalistic subhumans that don't actually enjoy the gym. People that swear by HIT usually look like DYELs and it's very often Millennials and Boomers with 14 inch arms and a gut.

>>77178545
If this is the cause, why is Dorian yates *to this day* coaching his clients with HIT principles? He just did an entire interview and in-field at his gym with Huberman a few months ago.
(Fuck hubermann btw)

>>77178716
Yates did more sets than Mike sold in his program.

Yates did "warm up sets" before his main set. And those warm up sets would kill an average gym goer anyway, since people usually don't train hard enough anyway.

Yates split is nothing more than a Brosplit but with actual effort put in.

>>77179122
It is said that different individuals have different recovery. Enhanced individuals, and elite BB have a better recovery ability, due to genetics and PED, therefore they can manage bigger volume.
HIT aims to do the optimal amount of work for muscle growth, which, acording to the principles, are fewer sets until muscle failure. More than what is necesary will not contribute to muscle growth

>>77178545
Use your judgement. Out of everyone you saw in the gym last time you used it, how many were doing not enough volume?

Everyone, or nearly everyone, does a ton of volume. More of it isn’t required. People need to do less but harder, and they can’t get around it mentally. They think if they go even more they’ll finally grow or improve and they never do. When was the last time you saw someone really sweating, really going for it? It’s basically no one even at serious gyms, they’re all in there for hours pounding away at minimal effort

>>77178716
HIT cannot grow muscle, it's ok for strength though.
Low volume high intensity is the exact method you use in sports where you need max strength and don't want mass, like certain track events.

>>77179633
>Everyone, or nearly everyone, does a ton of volume.
No. Everyone does 5x5 Starting Strength style, ie. specialized powerlifting routines.
That's why everyone looks like shit nowadays btw.

>>77179664
do you train entirely with users of this board

>>77179764
Kek

>>77179664
>5x5 Starting Strength
5 is like 5 times the volume of 1.

>>77180310
It's technically less volume than 3x10
volume is weight*reps*sets (and potentially *sessions) it is a total of weight moved in a given time frame. Sets done with a higher% of your orm usually accumulate less volume given how that scales to reps.

I only say this to highlight how much sets, reps and weekly tonnage models of weightlifting have largely broken down over time. Giving way to the effective reps model which explains almost all the interactions between intensity, sets, volume bridging conventional lifting and HIT into what is mostly a single number (assuming non-asinine loading schemes).

>>77180336
>volume is weight*reps*sets (and potentially *sessions) it is a total of weight moved in a given time frame.
Those aren't the same thing because weight is usually higher with 5x5 and volume is just number of sets.

>>77180374
It's not that's the line of bullshit people like Mike Israetel and youtubers tried to reduce it to. It's no one's fault but your own that you learned lifting from these conmen and internalized their summary of what was already a dysfunctional model as some kind of definition.

>>77180439
Fuck are you talking about, Israetel was a high volume proponent at least until nip nips did his HIT routine and got new gains, contradicting his own dogma. When it comes to strength and size, low vol high freq is optimum but everything else also works for a while, depending how long. Anything works for 6mo, then high vol works for a year or two, then your connective tissue can't keep up unless you minimize it. How many people keep lifting hard for two years? The thing is you don't HAVE to do four or three or even two hard sets per session to max gains, so why do it.

>>77180463
I said precisely what I meant. The people that simplified volume to be only sets per week and claimed that only sets per week was relevant were that camp.

Secondly the very definition of set falls apart when you start doing supersets and pause sets. (myoreps is the Israetel cluster's attempt to plagiarize and rebrand this to make it look like they came up with it)

How do I train intensity though. I don't get how do grind out a last rep like some anime character I just give up with a few reps in reserve because I'm scared of injury (bench) or dying (behind the neck press)

>>77180536
You just make a point to train that way you will grow in that capacity over time. Things I did early on to get there were static holds or really slow eccentrics on the last couple reps. I think pause sets (repping to failure then 15-30 seconds rest and doing it again) will make you super familiar with failure and what it should it feel like very quickly and even if you don't quite get there it's all within 5 reps to failure so it is doing something when you combine it with a rep goal like 20-25 reps total done with an 8-10 rep max weight having not rested longer than 30 seconds at time after having started. It will feel brutal but be manageable until you're moving really big numbers then have to decrease the quota.

>>77178226
See I don’t think this method makes sense. If intensity was this important, then weight class powerlifters would be just as jacked as bodybuilders, maybe even more since their intensity is even higher than bodybuilders their size. But this is not the case. Weight class powerlifters look decent but not like a dedicated bodybuilder at the same weight.

>>77180708
Are you genuinely retarded or have you been living under a rock for a decade?

>>77180821
The last decade has had study after study make the claim that volume is more important than intensity. I just think it’s further backed by the fact that powerlifters are the epitome of intensity based training but they are not as muscular as similarly sized bodybuilders even in the muscle groups that powerlifters hit adequately. That’s taking into account roids, too.

>>77180830
Opposite and the disciplines have become increasingly hybridizied even on the Olympic level. You're paying attention to incredibly small sphere of lifting and thinking that is the whole. Powerlifting is not remotely intensity based training except in their pre competition strength work ups. They were doing the Norwegian method since about 2016. Now a lot of them have jumped ship to do bodybuilder style training after China blew everyone out of the water by hybridzing the two by doing the majority of their work with intensity relative body building with lots of accessory work to build as much muscle as possible. Then switching gears to do high frequency strength ramp ups like the Norwegian lifters. Everyone competing has been doing this except like strongman sillyfest stuff you retards fixate on.

I do multiple sets of 1 rep. Not my max, but 85-90%. Try to increase the weight every weak. I like it.

Can someone explain HIT?

>>77183149
You push sets to failure or at the absolute least to 1 rep within failure. Intensity along with volume (sets per session and sets per week by bodypart) are some of the main dials you can adjust in terms of training variables. Because pushing to failure induces more fatigue and a higher recovery burden, it necessitates lower volume (if you're natty). The traditional recommendation has always been 10-20 sets per week per bodypart. Now it's kind of fallen down to 6-10 if you're really pushing.

For a long time muh science based nerds dominated the online fitness zeitgeist with the notion that the more sets you do per week the more gains you get. This was because Jeffrey Nipples and Mr Kike Israetel pushed it heavily based on shitty research, mostly on untrained lifters, that found there is no upper bound for the linear relationship between volume and more gains. Because the research is dogshit and dumb zoomer shitfluencers made it seem retarded by trying to game the algorithm by doing more and more retarded "optimal" lifts, the pendulum in the zeitgeist swung the other way and now everyone is obsessed with high intensity, low volume.

The "all roads lead to mentzer" shit is complete bs though, he said much more than just train hard and do less volume but people ignore all that.

>>77178226
I love it. I try to aim for 10 sets per week and I try to make the last rep an absolute grinder on every rep. I'm still making gains on dynamic double progression so unless that changes I see no need to do 1-2 RIR or less sets. I'm usually in the 6-10 rep range on everything. For most movements I do 2 sets. It's a lot more fun to be able to do 3 movements for back for example in 1 session than just 2. Also lets me be out of the gym in an hour which is a plus.

>>77183168
> last rep an absolute grinder on every rep
on every set*

>>77178401
>Want to do this
>Half the machines in my gym are on different floors so I can't SS

>>77178716
>If this is the cause, why is Dorian yates *to this day* coaching his clients with HIT principles?
hmmm now why would someone want to advertise their way of training as unique or a secret that only they can help with

>>77183177
everyone pushing high volume also does coaching and sells products no? and historically most of those people have been big time roidtrannys

>>77180581
Pause sets are pure kino

Does HIT even work?

>>77183355
why wouldnt it

>>77183360
Seems retarded.

>>77183355
The principle (or spirit) of it does, yes. Generally speaking you will see better progress if you intensify your training through weight as opposed to increasing repetitions or working sets. As others have touched on, most people thought it was all about volume. But if you look around most gyms, most people are doing a ton of volume and aren’t getting any improvement out of it. They’re not bigger or stronger or fitter. So they do MORE volume, going to the gym more often. Some even train twice a day for hours on end. Very, very few of them ever consider that if they did a lot less but did it properly and really pushed themselves that they’d see improvement

PPL 5x5 or 3x8 will see better results than being in there six days a week, hammering away with hundred rep seasons per muscle group. There is obviously a limit on how few reps and sets you can do, but ultimately it is the intensity and effort that gets results not the time spent doing it

>>77183371
In my simple thinking the obsession on volume always felt weird to me
"muscles can't count" is halfway there, but then there's also a weird obsession on time-under-tension formulas and charts that misses the forest for the trees
What I'm trying to ramble about here is that I like the idea of HIT, and it seems to work, but what also seems to work and has worked for me personally is "greasing the groove" kind of training;
for an anecdote I gained ridiculous amounts of arm strenght and mass by doing SURFING for a while and drinking beer in the evenings, made no sense to me at the time when I returned to the gym that all my max lifts had progressed significantly
Exercise science seems like a bafflingly complex field that constantly contradicts itself and is at least a decade late to explain how some "best practice" training programs actually work when they "win" in results.

>>77183434
HIT prioritizes hypertrophy and GtG prioritizes neurological adaptation
a case could be made to do both at different times since both kinda level up the ceiling for the other's priority

>>77183434
You enjoyed the exercise and the challenge of it and it saw you make good progress because you committed to it, basically. Someone who loves running will be a better runner than someone who doesn’t, all other things equal. They’ll commit to and be consistent with their training

>>77183472
GtG?

>>77183580
greasing the groove

File: IMG_20240923_2009425282.jpg (1.32 MB, 2727x3974)

1.32 MB JPG

>>77183371
Mike speaks to that in some of the old tapes. Not "how much work "SHOULD" I do to grow, but "how LITTLE" can I do to get as much growth stimulus as possible?
Other issue is that no one wants to recover, 6 day splits are a joke considering that recovery is a system-wide process and tacking on additional strain and recovery debt if prior workouts have not been recovered from just digs a hole. In the end, you get people doing insane 5x12-20 rep count workouts that stall out completely after a year and think they have to go on roids, instead of just going to 2 days between workouts.

It doesn't work retards.

>>77183608
>It doesn't work for retards
ftfy
people seem to have serious issues grasping the concepts of "one set" and "to failure"

>>77183623
Post proof?

>>77183625
start with yates

And when are you guys High Intensity Train hip thrusting your girfriends?

Might combine dc/rest pause sets with conjugate to handle my Accessory work. Is this asking for CNS death?

People should understand that the value of HIT and especially Mentzer is not purely in doing things 1:1 to what he said.
I would go as far as to say that most people without enhancement and not using meth as a PWO like Mike should not pursue training purely like he advised.
Mike's direction was right, but for him the distance he could go there was much further than most people can reliably do.
Doing just one (after proper warmup) really, really, really hard set per exercise to absolute failure just isn't what average people will be able to keep doing week to week. So doing two sets or, god forbid, THREE sets, doesn't inherently go against HIT.
The main point I think is simply this:
Put in as much effort and exertion in to the reps and sets you do as you can, within reason so you don't visit snap city, and don't obsess over the NUMBERS (volume, weight) in the middle of the process.
Retards like M. Israeli and Nippleff obsess about the metrics and numbers and all kinds of peripheral bullshit when the main focus should be in TRAINING WITH SOME FUCKING EFFORT, while also not being a retard about recovery and obsessing over number checklists of volume per week.

>>77183743
M. Isratel's level of retardness as the poster child of volume obsession (because of le science) can be distilled to his take on recovery:
He thought getting stronger week-to-week was an indicator you were not doing enough volume as he expects you to be so burned out you keep stalling there, but at least you still fill up the volume checklist! It's basedence!

>>77183669
What do mean conjugate? Like rotating a lift out when it stalls? Because that's how dc is normally done.

>>77183639
Retard.

>>77183780

U/L split with max effort days and dynamic effort days for the main lifts.

>>77184261
Yeah that's fine. Dc is usually capped at 6-8 weeks anyhow before you gotta go back to normal failure sparing training for a block. If you have some kind built fatigue management like that you can probably do that near indefinitely without deload. But no matter how you split it 1/2 your training on the calendar isn't going to be you doing much more than maintaining.

>>77183601
>6 day splits are a joke considering that recovery is a system-wide process
Explain why PPL is more exhausting than full body, assuming identical weekly volume. I.e. number of sets per day being like

5-5-5-5-5-5-0
vs.
15-0-0-15-0-0-0

Protip: You can't.

>>77184492
>Exercise
>Introduce muscle tears
>Body has to devote resources to building those muscles
>But wait
>Honklefuck goes back to the gym tomorrow to work ANOTHER muscle group
>New fires started
>Body has to split recovery resources across two muscle groups
>BUT WAIT- THERE'S MORE!
>Now legs are getting worked
>Body is rebuilding 3 different sets of muscles, but at 1/3rd the efficiency now
>Some cursed roid cucks even do 6 days in a row
Don't split your resources, get the most you can from each workout. Do you honestly want to be in the gym 24 days a month or would you rather go 8 times and grow equally as well and feel good?

>>77184761
You're a retard thanks for posting.

>>77184777
Checked for being a fucking retard.
If a city has to build new power plants to meet the needs of new electricity demand, why would your body -NOT- sputter out trying to recover when you continually pile on demands, and then be surprised when your strength nor size ever really goes anywhere as you continually put yourself into a deficit?

File: really.png (96 KB, 347x394)

96 KB PNG

>>77184761
>Body is rebuilding 3 different sets of muscles, but at 1/3rd the efficiency now
If you do full body that's just one set of muscles, instead of all three?

>>77178226
ULTRA reddit meme method of training.
High volume is always king.
>BUT BUT BUT DORIAN YATES
Yeah, and the others 500 Olympias?

That said, Mentzer is based.

>>77184858
Post proof.

>>77178241
>but made some changes
Yeah, like Mentzer did with the original one from the Nautilus guy (forgot the name), like Dorian did with the Mentzer HD, etc
That's the thing with HIT/HD etc. It doesn't work, everyone needs to constantly change it.
>lol 4 sets is ridiculous for this exercise
>me? I do HIT, only 1 set!
>but it's 1 one warmup set, 2 feeders set, and 1 working set!
Lol kys

>>77184915
Proof of what??

>>77178545
>He built his size on higher volume Kek.
True and well documented.

>He only created this HIT garbage to make money out of lazy and overly minimalistic subhumans that don't actually enjoy the gym. People that swear by HIT usually look like DYELs and it's very often Millennials and Boomers with 14 inch arms and a gut.
Kind of acid but it is true as well

>>77184858
>>BUT BUT BUT DORIAN YATES
>Yeah, and the others 500 Olympias?
Not even Dorian could be considered low volume.

File: ArthurJonesontheexperts.jpg (1.7 MB, 2972x3000)

1.7 MB JPG

>>77184925
>Nautilus guy (forgot the name)

One rep sets.

>>77178226
Homo.

>>77184957
Besides the resistance curve machines which I'm thankful for, I'm hoping the indirect effect is proven true.
I saw some preprint studies suggesting that HIT training to absolute momentary muscular failure does induce an HGH spike, raises test, and releases decorin which is a system-wide myostatin inhibitor but knowing the science cucks bow down to arthur would fill my heart with joy.

>>77184957
Fag.

Rest days mean no cardio btw

File: IMG_2072.png (1.44 MB, 1242x2688)

1.44 MB PNG

>>77178226
2 years natural ideal routine + some blood and guts techniques.

>>77178226
I think I am going to try HIT this year. I want to see for myself.

>>77184492
Because you have to use more weight.
If you do OHP immediately after bench, you won't be able to use as much weight compared to if you pushed back the OHP to the next day or later in the week.
But is the stimulus any greater for PPL? No, the muscles can't tell how much weight you're using. They can only tell if the fibers contract. The objective of the workout is only to bring the muscles to failure. If you do everything sequentially on one day, you can bring the muscles to failure with less volume, which is objectively better.
In your example, the number of sets may be the same, but the total amount of work is greater in the first case, which means more stress on the body and so is harder to recover from.

>>77185917
By all means, it is at the very least maintence.
Word of cation though have 2 or 3 lifts for every group. Not just to better isolate certain heads of muscles but to have a variety of stress patterns on your joints. You can absolutely fuck yourself on HIT because you gain a lot of strength in the short term and you wind up being able to move much heavier weights quickly. If you're going in without a warm up you can easily do something your connective tissue isn't ready to handle. So keep above 8 reps and under 15 and you'll be mostly safe. You want a wider rep range with HIT in your double progression because it gives you more time to adapt. With isolations who gives a shit but with actually heavy stuff use a wider range.

You'll eventually get to point where you're just repping the same weight for the same reps weeks on end. Then it might be time to mix shit up do that lift more often but sparing a rep or do it less often but harder or with a different rep tempo. Be prepared for HIT to not be perfect template for infinite gains since nothing is.

>>77185941
>If you do OHP immediately after bench, you won't be able to use as much weight compared to if you pushed back the OHP to the next day or later in the week.
It does make sense that only people with learning disabilities argue with me. Whether you do full body or PPL has zero to do with doing bench and ohp on the same day. You either do both 2-3x/week, or alternate, or just one, or neither.

>>77185942
Will probably make my own version of HIT program that suits my needs. Will try to post frequent updates.

>>77185952
>Whether you do full body or PPL has zero to do with doing bench and ohp on the same day.
>splitting up your routine doesn't change how many exercises you do on one day
Okay, here's another example to help you, braindead as you are. If you do bench after squats, you won't be able to move as much weight as if you did bench first thing and moved squats to a different day. This should be intuitive to anyone with a three digit IQ. The more you consolidate your routine to one day, the more you reduce the total work done.

>>77179122
>Yates did "warm up sets" before his main set. And those warm up sets would kill an average gym goer anyway, since people usually don't train hard enough anyway.
>12 reps with 50% of your 12RM, then 12 reps with 75% of your 12RM, is enough to kill the average gym goer.

>>77186048
Unlike the bench+ohp example that might actually be relevant so it would probably have been better to use it instead.

However, calling benching and squatting on the same day beneficial because you'll be worse at the second one is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board, and you might want to ask a relative to start looking at special needs facilities for you. 999,999 times out of a million it's preferable to be fresh for a lift.

>>77186024
Yeah that's what I was implying I don't think heavy duty (mentzer's thing) was very good at all after it's first version.

The general template is 2 lifts per group 1 compound that covers 2 or 3 groups than an accessory for each subgroup.

Like a bench then a fly and a lat raise. It's deceptively not actually 1 set per group despite the memes. You can even take it farther like 1 bench, a clavivular head isolation, a sternal head isolation, a tricep long head isolation, a lateral head isolation then apply that where able. Then you're up to what's on paper 3 sets a group even though it still meshes with HIT.

>>77185800
What height? I've done ideal routine with okay results for a tall guy for about 2ish years now but you're looking pretty good.

>>77185942
People say this but I don't think they see the genius in the ideal routine with the supersets.
Sure My upper body days are only once per week, but one week on arms I'm doing arms but will incidentally hit say chest or lats with the supersets that burn down the associated arm muscles like triceps or biceps with dips or lat pulldowns; vice versa on the chest/back day where lat pulldowns hit tris and incline bench hits triceps with the way he has you do close-grip.
John hart tho does recc doing 2 sets for the major upper body muscles tbf.

>>77186059
>calling benching and squatting on the same day beneficial because you'll be worse at the second one is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board
That's your misunderstanding. Bringing the muscle to failure with less volume is objectively better.
>999,999 times out of a million it's preferable to be fresh for a lift.
Supersets, for example, are so effective specifically because you're NOT fresh. That's the point.

>>77186976
>That's your misunderstanding.
No it isn't, moron.
>Bringing the muscle to failure with less volume is objectively better.
And no it isn't, moron. If you fail squats early because you just benched, that's systemic not muscular failure and it's worse for muscle training.

And if you just want less total fatigue you can stop short of failure with PPL, instead of being weak because you're doiing two hour full body workouts.
>Supersets, for example, are so effective specifically because you're NOT fresh. That's the point.
Depends on the lifts. If it's bicep curls and tricep pushdowns it's just to save time. If it's curls and rows or something, it might help you use less bicep rowing but it's inconsequential if you're lifting properly. (Like going hard while usinig your back.)

>>77186983
>that's systemic not muscular failure
What system, exactly? Tell me what biological process is being stressed.
Do you mean cardiovascular? That'll improve over time such that it's not the limiting factor, and if that's not the limiting factor then it must be muscular.
>And if you just want less total fatigue you can stop short of failure with PPL, instead of being weak because you're doiing two hour full body workouts.
Okay, now I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>77186999
>What system, exactly? Tell me what biological process is being stressed.
Primarily glycogen depletion, penisbrain.

>Okay, now I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.
Doesn't matter.

>>77186627
I don't think super sets are more useful than pause sets or what not when it gets down to a muscle by muscle basis. I you go with the effective reps model of ~only the last five reps before failure really count for hypertrophy but within those five they're mostly the same so not going to or going to failure on those is the same as long as the quantity of reps_within_5_of_failure (just 5rf from here on out) is the same. So you can super set, you can straight set, you can pause set or whatever else it's going to be similar. They're not any less effective just the logistics of hitting two stations in specific sequence tends to make them less practical if you're trying to cut down on gym time. As much as I would love to throw the poopsmell phone users out of the pec deck my gym won't allow it.

>>77187174
If the muscle is depleted of glycogen, it's because you've used it and everything I said before applies. That's not a reason to use PPL over Full Body. That's a reason NOT to split things up.

>>77187316
The interesting take in IR is that mentzer has you do complimentary supersets:
- Pullovers > pulldowns (adds in arm muscles and teres/traps)
- Pec deck > incline bench (adds in triceps)
- Leg extensions > back squats (Full weight on posterior chain but still working quads)
So driving the primary muscle into failure and then driving it into the ground on the superset secondary, BUT with the added benefit of using those other muscles to help drive it to failure and working those muscle groups at the same time.

>>77187383
I don't really see that as being logical. You can work anything but unless that specific cluster of fibers is getting within 5 of failure it's not contributing to their hypertrophy. Even in the same muscle whichever head was closer to or was the point of failure will benefit more than the others.

>>77187334
>If the muscle is depleted of glycogen, it's because you've used it and everything I said before applies. That's not a reason to use PPL over Full Body. That's a reason NOT to split things up.
You can get low blood sugar from only using some muscles. If you've lifted hard you've probably experienced it, but since you have no clue about anything you probably didn't know what it was. The liver stores glycogen for the whole body and it can be depleted.

File: Screenshot_20260404-03031(...).jpg (763 KB, 1080x2280)

763 KB JPG

>>77187544
Glycogen is also stored locally in the muscle.
I've sufficiently answered your question here >>77184492. You're arguing just to argue.

>>77187544
>>77187570
That is to say, there's no reason to eat into your liver glycogen during a bodybuilding workout. There's enough glycogen in the muscles before the workout begins to perform an exercise long enough to stimulate growth for each muscle. The limit of liver glycogen is not a reason to choose one schedule over another.

File: vwor.jpg (57 KB, 424x480)

57 KB JPG

>>77187570
>Glycogen is also stored locally in the muscle
Suggesting I might not know that already just demonstrates your obliviousness
>I've sufficiently answered your question here
You tried to cover your dumb ass after being stupid, for some reason since we're posting anonymously, and failed.
>>77187575
>there's no reason to eat into your liver glycogen during a bodybuilding workout.
>i'm not only a retard, i never lifted hard

>>77187595
>why u mad tho?
Seriously, chill out, retard. I've briefly read the argument between you two, and your hands are legit shaking, lmao.
>>77187334
Systemic fatigue is indeed a thing, not just local fatigue. This is the primary argument against full body as you seem unwilling to accept. You can get far more stimulation with pure isolation of every muscle rather than full body compounds due to such low fatigue to stimulus ratio (with lower injury risk to boot). The downside is absolutely no one is going to be doing that but professional bodybuilders and NEETs with no life, job, school, etc. and mommy supporting him because you'd literally be in the gym for fucking hours upon hours.
Between reasonable stimulation and practicality, most people are not going to go full autism one way (full body with great systemic fatigue) or the other (isolation heavy with only local fatigue). PPL does fall in the middle somewhere, but it's not some magic bullet and quite frankly its 90% categorization by semantics rather than effective session programming.
But whatever. You two retards do whatever you want. Time and time again it's proven that doing something you enjoy and can keep up consistently, safely, while putting in real effort is going to be far more effective than any armchair hypothesis.

File: Screenshot_20260404-04344(...).jpg (770 KB, 1080x2280)

770 KB JPG

>>77187595
>i'm not only a retard, i never lifted hard
Shortening the rest between exercises, doing all of them in a row back to back, makes the workout harder. I wouldn't expect you to know how it feels if you've never tried it. Picrel
>Suggesting I might not know that already just demonstrates your obliviousness
Well you brought up liver glycogen even though it's a non-issue.
>>77187607
>Systemic fatigue is indeed a thing, not just local fatigue. This is the primary argument against full body as you seem unwilling to accept.
You can bring the muscles to failure with less volume by supersetting everything. With less total volume required, there's less "systemic fatigue".
What system is being taxed more by doing less volume?
>You can get far more stimulation with pure isolation of every muscle rather than full body compounds
The discussion was not about compound movements vs isolation movements.

>>77187620
>Well you brought up liver glycogen even though it's a non-issue.
It's the cause of systemic fatigue, and I've felt it dozens of times. Runners call it hitting the wall; you aren't as strong/fast, you can't think very well, and you crave sugar. This motherfucker (You) is acting like no one was ever fucking worn out from physical activity.

>>77187607
>your hands are legit shaking, lmao.
Don't be a faggot.
>PPL does fall in the middle somewhere, but it's not some magic bullet
If you paid attention you might notice only the other guy was the one calling one method a problem "6 day splits are a joke", when it isn't.

>>77187672
>Runners call it hitting the wall;
Hm,, so not bodybuilding, then? As I expected. Long-distance cardio has nothing to do with anything in this thread.
You've felt it dozens of times because you don't train hard. You train for a long duration.

>>77187678
I've never felt it running. I happen to know things outside my personal experience, when you don't even know that.

First of all weight training isn't always "bodybuilding"; I don't compete in beauty pageants. But I've felt it many times even doing a 6 day split, under an hour at the gym, say if I didn't eat first, while on a caloric deficit (Somewhat carb depleted).

You have no clue what you're talking about and you're probably a fat incel trying to prove you're smarter than "jocks". You aren't.

>>77187685
>First of all weight training isn't always "bodybuilding"; I don't compete in beauty pageants.
"Bodybuilding" isn't always competing in a show. Nevertheless, you came into a bodybuilding thread by choice.
>But I've felt it many times even doing a 6 day split, under an hour at the gym, say if I didn't eat first, while on a caloric deficit (Somewhat carb depleted).
All of my workouts are full body, are done in a fasted state, and take about 1.5 hours. It's hard enough to make you feel ill at first, but you get used to it, as Oliva said.
Maybe you're just out of shape.

>>77187742
>Nevertheless, you came into a bodybuilding thread by choice.
HIT thread.
>All of my workouts...
No one on Earth cares.
>Maybe you're just out of shape.
The stronger you are the faster you can use glycogen. How many times did you fail the GED exam?

File: GfvTmcwXYAAnki_.jpg (79 KB, 900x1200)

79 KB JPG

how many sets you guys doing?

>>77187898
I do hip thrust to the girlfriend to failure, as many sets as I can with around 15 minutes pause between sets

File: 1774722028128196.jpg (129 KB, 775x1000)

129 KB JPG

>>77185942
Lmao see? Always changing it lol
>just add more exercises here and there
>I like it but IN MY VERSION I'd add more sets
>HIT is amazing but I've changed some aspects...

>>77187828
>what is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

>>77187828
>The stronger you are the faster you can use glycogen
Then you can more quickly exhaust that muscle and move on to another exercise. Also, the bigger your muscles are, the more glycogen they'll have stored before the workout even begins, so once again this is a non-issue.
Liver glycogen reserves don't need to be touched to stimulate muscle growth. Your workouts are simply too long. They're too long because they're not hard. If you were actually training hard, you wouldn't be able to tap into the liver glycogen. It is not a factor in deciding whether to do PPL or FB.

>>77180848
I tried looking this up, and see the results of the Chinese Taipei guys doing well proportionally. And bits about them doing bodybuilding stuff, but nothing about them doing intensity based bodybuilding.

All powerlifting has periodization built into it where intensity will eventually get high even if most of it is submaximal.

>>77188530
>this is a non-issue.
>Liver glycogen reserves don't need to be touched to stimulate muscle growth. Your workouts are simply too long.
I'm in the HIT thread because I usually do it. Regardless, if I get systemic low blood sugar then liver glycogen is being used. If I want to do X amount of work per week, whether it's lifting or cardio, it's more efficient for muscle building if I'm not stupidly doing half a full body workout in a weakened state. That's junk volume.
>just eat more
I don't have to, so I can burn more fat, if I do PPL, you victim of genetics.

"If what we see happening is not explained by your explanation then your explanation is wrong." - Mark Rippetoe

>>77188372
I don't know what point you're trying to make. HIT is an umbrella term for a category of workouts taking roughly similar approaches by prioritizing maximum intensity. It is not exclusively mentzer's heavy duty. Most of the modernizations to HIT come from making it work without amphetamines and steroids.

>>77188530
>Your workouts are simply too long. They're too long because they're not hard
nta but i never believed this. You can go HARD and LONG when you really want it.

>>77188838
Are you diabetic?
Are you bringing a blood glucose meter to the gym?

>>77189115
You can feel it as discussed several posts ago.