Two training methods

Robert Wilson

Bodybuilder/Fitness Model
#1
I hope everyone at Greatest Physiques had a Merry Christmas! I'm posting an article that was written back on May 14/2005.
The attempt is to compare two different training protocols.

Let me briefly illustrate each method. The first being High Volume training. This consists of using many sets and working out
for hours a day e.g. 2 hours for 6 days a week. It is up to the trainee how often he or she would like to work a body part. The
rep range could be anywhere from 5-7, 8-12, or higher.

Arthur Jones, inventor of Nautilus equipment had a different approach to working out. He postulated that High Volume was
a form of over training, inferring that this would overtax the bodies recovery sub-systems. Mike Mentzer, a former I.F.B.B.
pro concurred with Jones and later revised this training protocol and thus is called High Intensity Training. This training
methodology is a radical departure from the former High Volume philosophy. High Intensity are brief infrequent workouts
that focus on heavy weights with only 1-2 sets. The cadence, (speed) is slow in order to minimize momentum (an outside
force that could incur an injury). It has been postulated that a slower cadence forces the muscles to work harder, thus
creating a superior contraction.

On a personal note, it has come to my understanding that both training protocols have their merits and pitfalls. Mentzer
is correct in that virtually eliminating momentum produces tremendous training results. Using momentum can lead to
injuries e.g. muscles, ligaments, and tendons pulled, or worse torn. I have found that training with little momentum has
enhanced my physique to a great degree. When I incorporated momentum into my training the result was chronic rotator
cuff (left shoulder impingement). This training disability subsequently affected future workouts and thus forced me to not
only use lighter weights, but abandon certain exercises altogether.

Having trained with both High Volume and medium High Intensity as I would define it, both methods provided me with
gains I was aspiring to.

In conclusion, I often reflect on the past, and at the same time find intriguing is the fact that mankind throughout the
centuries, particularly before the industrial revolution did hours of manual labor 5-7 days a week, and in some cases
10+ hours each day. This proves that the human body can adapt to workloads of varying intensities. When work
was assigned, no thought was put into e.g. how many times the arm muscles were used, nor for how long. In past
eras, art in the form of paintings have depicted some human physiques as predominantly muscular in appearance.
Although, if not properly nourished, the end result would not be as apparent.

My workout schedule, though sporadic at times was 5 days a week, approx. 1.5 hours for weights, and 20 min.
cardio. This proved taxing, yet the results were phenomenal!

When I wrote this article back in the day, I had learned to compromise between both training philosophies. I agree
with Mentzer and Jones on the issue of over training. In hindsight, if I`d applied more rest days, the progress that
proved phenomenal could have surpassed this achievement!

Happy New Year!

Robert Wilson

Former Trainer Personal