Vince Gironda

kasper2133

New Member
What do you think of Vince Girondas methods. More work done in a short period of time. - 6x6 or 8x8 with very short rest. 15-20 seconds between sets? The weight will naturally drop, because of the short rest periods. I know the training style is just for cosmetic results, but do you think there are better methods, or will they work to get maximum hypertrophy? I have just read the thread on DFHT, and i cant help thinking that he build his training up nearly the same way. Mostly he recommended a 2 split, and to take every 4th week off. Sounds very similar to me. Just a different method to accumulate fatique.
 
Last edited:
Well, there are lots of method of training, but I'm not keen on that amount of volume. Additionally, I think most good coaches will tell you that intensity (with regards to 1rm) is better kept high in order for strength gains and myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur, and this "Vince Gironda" guy's program won't allow for that.

I haven't ever heard of him though.

Also, what's the point of 8x8? Either you will get to absolute total muscular failure, which is not needed and drastically elongates the time needed for recovery before training can begin again. OR you would start with such a low load that the first several sets wouldn't incur much of a training stimulus at all.

Matt
 
AM,

Gironda was a prick who advocated never squatting ("ruins proportions, gives you big glutes") bench to the neck with elbow flare ("isolates the pecs") , never doing regular bench press ("a cheats exercise") etc etc.

He was something of a guru in the 50's / 60's etc.

Classic pseudo-lifter femmeboy, IMHO, ofcourse.

G
 
Ironman Magazine

Profile in current Ironman Magazine.

Ditto what everyone else said.
 
I thought he was way ahead of his time. Yes some of his methods were rediculous, but some of his methods produced results fast.

Yes, his exercise selections was not the ones you would choose, but he also had different goals than many of us do. we do squats, deads, benches, the basics to build mass. But he just wanted to concentrate on the certain places, like the upper pecs, medial delts, vastus medialus, etc. his theory on illusion of size was more important than the size itself. He thought the basics produced mass that was not appealing. That was his reasoning.

I liked some of his ideas, but did not like others. This is where you pick up things you like and discard things you dont. Just because you dont agree with some of his stuff, does not mean he wont have something that you can learn from him.
 

Sponsors

Back
Top