Raw Food/Vegan Dieting ...Stronger/Leaner Possible??

[RawVgn]

The main reason I don't prefer free weights is I can't get the intensity with them. I work to COMPLETE failure on every set. Do a barbell exercise like bench presses to failure without a partner and see what happens-you'll end up exhausted with a heavy barbell laying across your chest. Doing pyramids and cheat reps, to increase intensity, is also easier and faster on machines- I can pyramid down in 2 or 3 seconds on a machine and never give my muscles a chance to recover.

 

Also, I deal with ongoing injuries from martial arts-I'm recovering from a broken rib right now, the second time this year. I like having a sport like weight lifting were I essentially never get injured, because it sucks endlessly convalescing.

[blabbate]

The main reason I don't prefer free weights is I can't get the intensity with them. I work to COMPLETE failure on every set. Do a barbell exercise like bench presses to failure without a partner and see what happens-you'll end up exhausted with a heavy barbell laying across your chest. Doing pyramids and cheat reps, to increase intensity, is also easier and faster on machines- I can pyramid down in 2 or 3 seconds on a machine and never give my muscles a chance to recover.

 

Also, I deal with ongoing injuries from martial arts-I'm recovering from a broken rib right now, the second time this year. I like having a sport like weight lifting were I essentially never get injured, because it sucks endlessly convalescing.

I would never trade the RoM and core strengthening of free weights, especially standing free weights, for the machines. Bench presses are probably the only lift where going to complete failure is dangerous without a spotter, as long as you're in a gym that doesn't mind if you bail.

[Couture547]

I think machines are fine as a supplement to a overall program, but i think that as the core of your program heavy compound lifts are best. Machines gide you through a range of motion and also don't work any of the stablier muscles that are so important in every day activities and athletic stuff. I work out alone most of the time and never had a issue lifting free weights. Bench is the only thing where there could be a issue, but with that usally benches will have lower clips so if you can barely get it off your chest you can still rackett. Every other lift you can go to falure. You can just use dumbell bench and go to falure.

[el_flaco]

Benching alone is dangerous whether you believe you can bail or if there are lower pins to rack it on.

 

Failing to get the weight back up is not the worst thing that can happen to you. You won't bail after a pec tear or after the falling bar knocks you out.

 

Just ask for a spot.

 

Working to COMPLETE FAILURE ON EVERY SET is an asinine way to train.

[RawVgn]

I learned 1 set of each exercise to total failure from Ellington Darden, who first got exposed to it while working for Nautilus in the 70s. I've read that about half the NFL uses a similiar HIT method, and Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer used it. It looks like its got a good track record and following to me, and I buzz through workouts in less than an hour total weekly. I've been making steady gains with a minimum of time invested, and working out only twice a week allows me full recovery which seems to be helping my strength growth. For a fitness buff like me, spending less time in the weight room gives me time and energy to train flexability and endurance and martial arts without burning out. And I'm definitely making better progress than when I was lifting 4 times a week, but with much lower intensity. By using such low frequency and duration lifting, I can go all out the whole time; it's a cool system.

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to do any set less than 100% of capacity; if your not going to failure, then your not using the entire muscle and it has no reason to grow. A set to less than failure is little more than prefatiguing the muscle in preparation for eventually getting serious. The school I follow says just go straight to failure and don't bother with the time and energy wasting rituals; increase the weight so that you'll fail at between 8 and 12 reps of the first set. When you can do more reps, it's time to increase the weight again. The system seeks continual progress and total effort every time. And it does it in the minimum amount of time and ensures the most amount of recovery, which is when muscles actually grow. You can call it "asinine", I call it smart.

[VeganEssentials]

I learned 1 set of each exercise to total failure from Ellington Darden, who first got exposed to it while working for Nautilus in the 70s. I've read that about half the NFL uses a similiar HIT method, and Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer used it. It looks like its got a good track record and following to me, and I buzz through workouts in less than an hour total weekly. I've been making steady gains with a minimum of time invested, and working out only twice a week allows me full recovery which seems to be helping my strength growth. For a fitness buff like me, spending less time in the weight room gives me time and energy to train flexability and endurance and martial arts without burning out. And I'm definitely making better progress than when I was lifting 4 times a week, but with much lower intensity. By using such low frequency and duration lifting, I can go all out the whole time; it's a cool system.

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to do any set less than 100% of capacity; if your not going to failure, then your not using the entire muscle and it has no reason to grow. A set to less than failure is little more than prefatiguing the muscle in preparation for eventually getting serious. The school I follow says just go straight to failure and don't bother with the time and energy wasting rituals; increase the weight so that you'll fail at between 8 and 12 reps of the first set. When you can do more reps, it's time to increase the weight again. The system seeks continual progress and total effort every time. And it does it in the minimum amount of time and ensures the most amount of recovery, which is when muscles actually grow. You can call it "asinine", I call it smart.

 

The problem is, Mentzer helped popularize H.I.T., only for it to be revealed years later after his death that he rarely ever trained via the method despite his claims that he built his physique on it

 

I think that H.I.T. is a fine principle for those looking to spend as little time in the gym as possible and to use for cycles of a few months at a time, but truthfully, if you ask around, very few people who are advanced lifters or bodybuilders will use the system because it, like everything else, will eventually offer diminishing returns on your investment. Not only that, but training to absolute failure on some lifts is not a great idea (deadlifting come to mind immediately, squatting is not too far behind) because trying to find where you peak on those lifts for where you can't do another could end up being a bad move. And, as has been mentioned by others, machines are fine to incorporate, but no matter what, a leg press will never be a squat (as well as a machine bench will never be the same as a barbell bench, etc.), and will not work you half as hard because you are taking out all stabilizers in the movement, same for any other lift. While it may be easier to keep "safe" with machines, they won't yield the same real-world strength because they honestly are inferior to free weights. Heck, I was quite proud of myself years ago when I was a leg press specialist, hitting 5 reps with 1350 lbs., only to start squatting soon afterward and find that going to proper depth with 315 lbs. was almost enough to squash me. Just something to consider, as if you haven't tried any free weight training in a while, you could be in for a big surprise from lack of carryover that most people experience after training machines for a long stretch.

 

But, if it works for you, keep doing it. Me, I know that I need more volume in order to reap benefits, even if it's just a handful of heavy singles or doubles after getting warmed up. I almost never have trained to absolute failure and always experienced my best growth from it. Matter of fact, the only times I recall in my training that were stagnant were when I was actually training to failure on all workouts, with my best gains coming out on days where I worked at 100% intensity (which is the norm), but with few sets, heavy reps and leaving feeling still rather refreshed. Though, like I always say here, everyone is different, so keep up what works, but what bears repeating time after time is that there is no "perfect" program that works for everyone, and all programs, no matter how good now, will eventually stop paying out in time because you will eventually adapt. If H.I.T. was truthfully the best program for all and offered a continuous ladder of results in minimal time, nobody would be doing any other sort of training because it would be a waste. That's why there's always skepticism - a lot of people who claim great results with H.I.T. say that they weren't training with proper intensity prior to changing over, and I think that has a lot more to do with progress than the program itself. All too often, I see people lifting who do countless sets for a body part but don't look like they're going all-out (not to failure, but all-out in complete focus and lifting to very close to failure), and that's likely why they don't progress. It's not going to be beneficial to cut a set short at 10 reps if you're good for an easy 15-20 no matter what program you're on, but stopping the rep before failure isn't somehow far inferior regarding stimulating growth vs. going all-out to complete failure.

 

Ah, I'm rambling too much on this, getting off course into H.I.T. territory instead of the true questions

[RawVgn]

You bring up some very good points VE. And honestly, most of you guys look a lot stronger than me so I'm definitely listening. And your point about not working w real intensity before learning HIT also applies to me, so the last 6 months are the first time I've ever really focused on intensity. The points about stabalisers and core strength make a lot of sense too, so I'm going to try to get on the free weights more (they're very popular) and see how it goes.

 

I do use free weights regularly for stiff-legged deadlifts, pullovers, rev curls, wrist curls and extensions, lat raises, shrugs, tri extensions, side bends, standing rows, and so on. I didn't think anyone would be very interested in my side bend or wrist curl numbers. Looking back on this string, I think it some how concluded I don't use free weights when I probably use them almost half the time. Maybe it's because I tend to use machines for the bread and butter stuff like benching, military press, bent rows, squats, and so on.

[Im Your Man]

To me, it doesn't make sense to do any set less than 100% of capacity; if your not going to failure, then your not using the entire muscle and it has no reason to grow. A set to less than failure is little more than prefatiguing the muscle in preparation for eventually getting serious. The school I follow says just go straight to failure and don't bother with the time and energy wasting rituals; increase the weight so that you'll fail at between 8 and 12 reps of the first set.

I agree, but I think the last part is more important than it may appear "increase the weight so that you'll fail at between 8 and 12 reps of the first set.". Some people using the HIT system also do many sessions lifting the same loads, to get the muscles really used to this weight and gaining 100% of potential (in endurance and strenght) before adding more weights - you add weight less frequently but you can make bigger steps at each time. I think it may be beneficial to muscle growth, as well as contributing to more thick and thight muscles.