What does HIT give that Non HIT doesn't?
- 12-24-2004, 01:48 AM
- 12-24-2004, 10:24 AM
IMO opinion different things work for different people.
If you don't believe in a particular workout don't try it. Or you can just try it for a month and see if it works for you.
12-24-2004, 02:19 PM
I think a common mistake many people make is they think there is only one way to train. Often time when trying various routines a person will experience a growth/ strength spurt and make the mistake of thinking that they found the holy grail of weight lifting. The reality is that success will not last on any routine. That being said that HIT never worked very well for me. IMO it is best suited for a post cycle routine when your endocrine system is out of whack or after doing a extreme high volume routine and are in an over trained state. Followers of a HITtraining protocol are almost like a cult. They will have you believe that if you do more than one set you will be over training, when the reality is over training is a physiologic state that takes some time to get to.
12-24-2004, 06:45 PM
12-27-2004, 05:48 PM
12-27-2004, 06:18 PM
I think he means "why would you want to show your CNS exactly where failure is, thereby putting yourself in a position where a CNS rut is more likely".Originally Posted by Manwhore
This is a common criticism of HIT - a criticism of failure training. I'm not a HIT expert and have never done it, but methinks you would have to carefully periodize weight increases with HIT to negate this issue.
12-27-2004, 06:38 PM
Yes with HIT you rarely do the exact same thing twice. You incorporate static holds, preexhaust techniques, maybe a forced rep to break a plateau, or incorporate super slow tempo reps. The exercises may stay the same but the techniques should change from time to time. HIT is mistakenly thought of as do one set to failure and go home, although you may do that from time to time on an HIT routine it is rare.
HIT has proven itself many times but, as said before, everyone is different.
12-27-2004, 06:41 PM
HIT works for most as most people don't have the best genetics for gaining lbm ... HIT works for everyone but is great for those who take longer to recover (which is the vast majority of people) that said i prefer my own variant of max-ot which is similiar to HIT but still a little different
i hate high reps low weight, for me and i truly believe for almost anyone if you wanna really get big, you have to get strong, and the best way to get strong is to LIFT HEAVY ****ING WEIGHTS
12-27-2004, 07:28 PM
Well,i can honestly say HIT was responsible for the best strength increases i have ever experienced.... Everyone who knows HIT should know that it doesn't always mean 1 set per exercise taken to failure,but all HIT is brief infrequent and intense.... Some also say that HIT will lead to nervous system failure and those same people say 1 set isn't enough for strength increases. I don't exactly know what they are trying to say because it's the nervous system that causes strength increases,if 1 set wasn't enough but that 1 set is causing nervous system failure than how can you possibly do anymore? Also,everyone who knows HIT knows that it should be used INFREQUENTLY,and that alone would stop any type of overtraining. It's definitaly not for everyone,but for those who can work through the pain,i think it's worth it
12-27-2004, 09:17 PM
HIT works pretty well... but then again, so does volume training, GVT, HST, Max-OT, DC-style, etc, etc, etc... a body can get used to HIT and the same for any other type of training... we are very adaptable creatures...
there is no be-all end-all for training methods... the sooner a person gets this simple fact into his/her skull, the sooner they can make more and better gains...
12-27-2004, 10:43 PM
It didn't work at all for meHIT works for everyone but is great for those who take longer to recover
12-27-2004, 11:34 PM
Alot of people may have had that problem,which is why there are now so many types of HIT. Dorian took it to 2 sets per exercise,DC switched it up,and so many others have changed it to their likingOriginally Posted by VanillaGorilla
12-27-2004, 11:38 PM
Which is why taking each set to failure works so well. You know you've done all you can possibly do to stimulate growth. If your making progress with each training session while taking each set to failure,how can your body adapt. It can't adapt to stress it hasn't already felt.Originally Posted by Bean
12-28-2004, 09:47 AM
12-28-2004, 01:57 PM
HIT worked well for me. I bought Mike Mentzer's HIT book and followed the suggested routine. From my experience its best to switch the methods of training every once in a while. I switch to high volume (no failure) for 3 months after my HIT routine. I am also quite fond of the 20 rep squat routine, which I use during winters. The Max-OT style is quite popular too.
Bodybuilding is a lifetime endeavour and there is no method that will guarantee results forever. I think it takes at least 52 weeks of complete study for a person to estimate which methods are best suited to his body type. He needs to cycle the various (at least 2) training protocols for a year or so. These results can then be used for a lifetime. One other weak area for most guys is that they tend to switch training protocols far too often without actually giving the protocol enough time. This has happened to all of us at some point or the other (workout of the month - magazines). If you're trying HIT give it at least 3 months. Perhaps then you can decide if you never want to incorporate it again. The same goes for any other training method.
12-28-2004, 07:46 PM
Going to failure on heavy core lifts has VERY limited value IMO. It does provide some adaptive stress that is not induced by stopping short of failure, but that adaptive stress is neurological in nature (the last motor units to fatigue are RED fibers, not white, and these demonstrate little capacity for hypertrophy) and training EVERY set to failure in all exercises is asking for it.
If you're going to train to failure, your best bet is to track time rather than reps, and train with weights that allow you a minute or more of time under tension with minimal rest between reps. This will provide improve endurance, provide a minor hypertrophy stimulus, and may contribute to the efficiency of the nervous system by a different mechanism than lifting heavy loads.
12-28-2004, 11:00 PM
umm your nervous system CAN adapt to that sort of training to lie to your brain THINKING you've given all you've got when you really havent... PLUS your muscles can also develop much more endurance therefore needing MORE sets to reach that state... load, frequency, intensity, and volume are all seperate variables; tweak one and you have to tweak another, but one by itself does not a exercise plan make...Originally Posted by Manwhore
trust me.. hit is just another type of training; it can be changed and evolved many different ways as expressed above in DC's style, and basic style, etc...
12-28-2004, 11:15 PM
actually HIT reduces wear on the CNS, reduces the chance on injury, cuts the risk of elevated cotisol levels and boosts GH levels.
for athletes it allows them to spend LESS time in the weight room and MORE time praticing their particualr sport.
12-28-2004, 11:43 PM
HIT RAISES wear on the CNS my friend, failure is extremely stressful - why do you think that HITheads need to take a week off between workouts? As for reducing injury, anecdotally, dorian yates was injured very frequently given his training protocol, and the breakdown in form that occurs near failure is the prime time for injuries to occur, especially when working with heavy weights.
Light weights for high reps (15-20) raises GH but so what? This accomplishes nothing. As for cortisol, just eat - insulin solves that problem. And honestly I'm not even sure that cortisol levels post workout are lower after a HIT style workout than a normal workout - studies I have read show that given the type of workout the researchers had the subjects performing, cortisol levels became elevated after an hour or some such - but I don't recall any of those studies comparing different exercise protocols.
12-29-2004, 02:56 AM
We could argue about this till the end of time. HIT and high volume both have their advantages. One cannot rely completely on any one method and expect results thruout.
Dorian was perhaps the only high intensity trainer who tore himself apart. The number of bodybuilders who've injured themselves due to high volume training are countless. The list includes yours truly. According to Mentzer, HIT is less stressful on the CNS since the bodybuilder is only managing 3 working sets for any given bodypart, on any given workout day. He also allows ample time for recovery. Mentzer has emphasized on the need to recover the CNS prior to hitting weights again. He hasn't at all ignored that. His protocol recommends working a bodypart no more than once every 10 days. 1 or 2 sets to failure stress the CNS, but allowing for sufficient recovery puts things back on track. The high volume method recommends hitting a bodypart once every week with multiple sets and exercises. This could lead to overtraining even though it may not tax the CNS to breakdown point. Muscle fatigue should also be accounted for. One can easily defeat this flaw by tweaking the program (reducing no. of sets, decreasing intensity, increasing the no. of rest days).
From what I've studied, all popular programs recommend going to positive failure on the last rep (HIT, Max-OT, 20 rep squats). Forced reps have been suggested, but only for the elite. IMO forced reps are the culprits to overtraining and injury, not working out to failure on the final rep. Even programs like HIT or 20 rep squats need to be rotated to avoid going into a plateau.
The bottomline: adequate rest is quintessential to any program, HIT or non-HIT.
12-29-2004, 12:39 PM
I just don't like how religious HIT guys are, that's all
Training to failure provides some stimulus for neural adaptation (so it will potentially make you stronger) which may have long term benefits. However, training to failure on heavy lifts invites injury, and training to failure on core lifts (esp. for a powerlifter) will tend to introduce form issues towards the end of the set which can be incorporated into your every day form in a worst case scenario. Also, the soviets found that training to failure in lifts would tend to cause a lifter to fail early in the lift, as some sort of psychological mechanism, though there isn't solid research to back this up. Failure isn't required. Mentzer was wrong about this, HIT guys are wrong about this, and this is probably my biggest issue with them. A little bit of failure on light assistance exercises is a good thing, given moderation.
Rest is also important, but it's the fanatical belief in taking every set to failure and beyond that neccesitates 7-10 days of rest between workouts. I agree with the HIT mantras of low volume and adequate recovery, but if you aren't trying to kill yourself under the weights adequate recovery is from 3 to 5 days for EVERYONE. The Mentzer'esque idea of low volume is a bit too low as well - Yates had this about right, 3-4 exercises for a given area, with 1-2 sets for each, for a total of about 6-8 sets at most.
If you want to see a program that is both scientific and based on massive volumes of anecdotal evidence, check out Westside Barbell. Louis simmons and chuck vogelpohl took a friend of chuck's from off the street to a 600 bench in just over three years. I think he's lifting in the 275 class too which means the guy has some size.
12-29-2004, 01:06 PM
I think people are correct, to a point, when they say their is less chance to get injuried from HIT. But that's simply because there are fewer repititions being done. But there's a difference between oppurtunity and probablity. As exnihilo has pointed out, using too heavy a weight can lead to bad form, which will usually result in injury. You simply have to make sure you use good form, especially on the heavy lifts.
I'm a fan of HIT because of it's scientific approach but use a modified version. I'll do about 7 sets for a body part, low reps, heavy weight. Some might call this MAX-OT but my brother and I were playing around with this back in the early 90's before it had a name. So I'll do say 2 sets of an exercise, the both sets to failure. If I get 8 or more reps on the first set, I up the weight for the next set. If I don't get 8, I'll start my next workout with that weight.
I think part of the reason the West Side style works so well is that they work different things at different times. West Side still says to use heavy weights, but not all the time. And they also work on developing speed. Their approach reminds me a lot of the way lifting cycles used to be. The earlier part of the cycle was spent working on form and assistance exercises. Not every workout required you to go heavy and to failure all the time.
01-03-2005, 11:14 PM
more like fanaticalOriginally Posted by exnihilo
"HIT is the only way 99% of people can gain muscle mass, i dont care what worked for you; you have good genetics", etc, etc, etc
sound familiar? HIT didnt work for me, neither did just volume... mixing it up worked for me... i'm mixing up my volume training right now by dropping the reps down to 5-6
i dont make excuses for my genetics either anymore... i've got what i was born with and i'll bust my ass to work hard with what i've got...
01-22-2005, 10:36 AM
WSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.
Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.
I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.
01-22-2005, 01:58 PM
And, to those who think WSB is too PL aimed (which it is, but will still give size) DoggCrapp is like PL for bodybuilders. I've not used it, yet, but most people are happy with his training when they've done it correctly (under he or one of his approved DC trainers).Originally Posted by exnihilo
I just wonder what dante looks like NOW. I've seen pics of him over at avant that are a little old, but I don't know if he'd want them posted
edit: Oh, and that "lack of definition" is a bodyfat issue. Cardio will fix that, not some high volume routine or something fancy. lol.
Similar Forum Threads
- By UCSMiami in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 06-20-2015, 04:54 PM
- By MadeInCanada in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 12-08-2009, 06:33 PM
- By ShapiroMD in forum SupplementsReplies: 44Last Post: 10-31-2009, 01:15 AM
- By Fearhk213 in forum SupplementsReplies: 5Last Post: 05-10-2006, 08:52 AM
- By YellowJacket in forum AnabolicsReplies: 19Last Post: 01-16-2003, 04:03 PM