An article on HIT by my younger brother. Excellent Article [Forum Archive]

-->

Pages: 1

An article on HIT by my younger brother. Excellent Article

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: camarosuper6

HIT for average individuals
by MP

I have developed a relatively objective analysis of the online fitness community. I say objective because I never take part in discussion across the various forums that exist; from ironman to bodybuilding.com. There is great division between people who take part in these discussions of fitness. You can categorize the methods of trainers into two sects. The first, and most popular of the two, are volume trainers. The focus of these individuals is on using multiple sets and more frequent training to advocate muscle growth.

The other division is represented by intensity trainers, who indicate that fewer workouts composed of single set exercises (to muscle failure) will advocate the greatest muscle growhth. There are an innumerable number of distinct methods in each category, though they tend to follow (of necessity) the principles set forth by each training philosophy.

In evaluating both sides, I have recognized that each is completely sure of their method (as they should be), but tend toward condescending and malicious sentiment to those that disagree with their own view. HIT (High Intensity Training) proponents, by far in the minority, are commonly attacked viciously when presenting arguments on most body building forums. HIT users are not, however, above shamelessly petty attacks on those HVT (High Volume Training) advocates.

What is often lost in the argument are five points that I feel are of significant importance relative to the general population and athletes, and therefore should be at the forefront of debate. Fitness online, however, is largely composed of bodybuilders, whose primary intent is not (by their own admission) functional strength but muscle hypertrophy (enlarged muscles).

I will forego arguing why HIT is fine for bodybuilding, because such an argument will get no where. The greatest argument against HIT in bodybuilding is that, while it works well for functional strength, it does not induce hypertrophy like a more traditional HVT workout. Again, we will avoid any needless discussion of this, as most reading have probably already have made up their mind on the topic.

There is, however, no argument to be made (except, perhaps, by those on the fringe of lunatic ignorance) that an effective, properly conducted HIT program significantly increase ones strength. I will argue that a person of average genetics will progress faster on a HIT program, especially if ones intention is to get stronger. Even if that is not the case, and progress could be assumed to be identical on a good program of either philosophy, I arrive at point in this argument to why, for the general population and athletes, HIT is a far superior method. I will outline these points below:

1) Time

HIT workouts are brief of necessity, and done with days of rest inbetween. If strength is not increased every workout, a workout was wasted. There is no room to debate: either up reps or weight, or take additional time off. It is in this that the "average" person will see the best results. Those of us with work, school, wives, husbands or children can now keep the true priorities in life actual priorities while achieving optimal fitness. Gone are the incessant hours of pumping in the gym; time that could be spent doing things of greater importance. I can already hear the rebuttal to this argument: if you want to get real results, you have to sacrifice for it. I won't dignify that with a response, other than to say that individuals with such a belief probably have no real sense of priority.

2) Stress

The stress factor is directly related to time. Anyone who has lifted for several hours a day for months at a time knows the physical and psychological tolls that are inflicted on one living on a schedule such as this. Average individuals already have enough to worry about without dealing with the (as I believe) unnecessary rigors of volume training. As an intensity trainer, though intensely difficult, I find the days in the gym to be a relief of stress psychologically, whereas volume training was a cause of stress for me.

3) Confusion

Confusion is one of the greatest psychological tolls of traditional volume training. Keeping up with number of sets, exercises, and lifting techniques incorporated into every workout (drop sets, rest pause, etcetera) will likely result in trainees who aren't sure how to continue, aren't sure what is the most effective, aren't sure where or when to change techniques. Most people don't have the time or capacity to rifle through muscle magazines (long heralded as training bibles, specifically promoting volume training). HIT is simple in that it rarely changes, stays with a consistent set of exercises, and generally avoids techniques like drop-sets (again, for average trainers) which are generally not necessary.

4) Tracking

One of the most overlooked fundamental benefits of HIT is that it makes for much, much easier tracking. The reasons behind this are numerous. Most obvious is the total number of exercises and sets. Less to keep track of. Also, doing a single set will allow one to use a greater amount of weight because of the all out effort of the set. People who do X number of sets (lets say 4) of X number of reps (lets say 8) will not consistently give a one hundred percent effort on each set. If they did, they wouldn't be able to perform 8 reps on subsequent sets once the first is completed. A good real world example of this is sprinting. Sprinting until one collapses at one hundred percent effort will leave one incapaciates for several minutes to sprint again, and once the initial sprint is completed (because of numerous factors, included lactic acid buildup, depleted glycogen, and issues with the CNS and neuron firing patterns) subsequent sprints will not be capable of being done at the same rate. Overlapping of muscles also clouds ability to track in volume training. If you did three back exercises and then do a deadlift, do you really think your deadlift weight is an accurate reflection of your strength? I saw this effect frequently, especially depending on when I did the exercise in my routine, as a volume trainer. I couldn't tell, from workout to workout, if I was in fact getting stronger or if I was just performing better because I did the exercise before certain anscillary muscles were fatigued? The relative absence of overlapping and the single set for a handful of exercises (at most six, if you are using a traditional HIT approach) makes result tracking easier tenfold.

5) Athletes

The second most overlooked fundamental benefit of HIT is in relation to athletes. Athletes are interested in a handful of things: specifically, speed, agility, endurance, and strength. Athletes aren't concerned with looking good ala bodybuilders. Instead, athletes (lets use football as an example) focus on being able to move fast, move with mobility, and demonstrate power. Here, traditional arguments against HIT fly out the window. Avoiding senseless hours in the gym and lifting for strength allows exceptional amounts of time to focus on other key athletic elements. Lets say that HIT really didn't induce much hypertrophy (which I believe is absurd, but lets say that it doesn't for arguments sake). To an athlete, that wouldn't be a bad thing. A 200 pound linebacker bench pressing 350 pounds doesn't care if he is packing on weight. If he does pack on muscle weight it won't necessarily hurt, but if he doesn't, it won't hurt either. What matters is his ability to generate force. Beyond this, spending less time lifting is not as traumatic on joints and connective tissue and allows for better recovery from intense workouts that aren't related to weight training.

I have done my best to spare you, the reader, from more needless argument. Bodybuilders tend to volume, and oddly enough those of us who just want to get in shape mimic the lunacy of their efforts. This makes no sense; by admission, most of us don't want the steroid induced bulges of those we see in muscle magazines. So why do we work out as they do? Instead, it seems the more common man and woman would derive much better benefit in relationship to time and stress by incorporating a good HIT program into their lifestyle.

My bro is almost as smart as me

He writes the occasional article, and I think he does an excellent job.

Posted by: Brak86

what is hypertrophy

Posted by: camarosuper6

hypertrophy is basically muscle growth.

Posted by: myCATpowerlifts

Basically its when you have gone to the point that your body
WILL rebuild your muscles bigger, stronger, and harder, because you have given it the stimulus it needs to grow

Posted by: tjwes

Well written article,your brother is a damn good writer.

Posted by: Mex

Quote:

I can already hear the rebuttal to this argument: if you want to get real results, you have to sacrifice for it. I won't dignify that with a response, other than to say that individuals with such a belief probably have no real sense of priority.

He should at least bother to point people who question that to other articles that explain. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Posted by: camarosuper6

Not a cop out at all, he just doesnt want to write the article for arguments sake, and he knows people will want to make a rebuttal.

Posted by: Mex

Yes, I understand, I mean he should point to lots of sources for people who want to argue. I use HIT training and generally agree with him.

Still, it's a good article, that's just one thing I thought could be improved.

Posted by: Terok`Nor

has anyone read this article
http://fortifiediron.net/view.php?id=7

Posted by: Dale Mabry

He forgot the third group that sees the positives in both and uses that to periodize their program accordingly.

Posted by: camarosuper6

Dale woke up a sleeping article

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Wow, tekor nor, you sure did come up with a fantastic link.

Posted by: Yanick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Wow, tekor nor, you sure did come up with a fantastic link.

what's wrong with that link?

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Initially, he evoked a long retired thread by giving nothing but a link. I'm sure he could say what he thinks instead of pointing to a link that says it for him. Secondly, I don't personally feel that the link had of good substance. Hopefully tekor nor can elaborate on what he believes so I don't have to respond to a link.

Posted by: camarosuper6

Quote:

Over the days since the Jones and Mentzer era have HITers been bottle feeding the public with stupidity and idiotic methods. This piece is going to be rather lengthy in explaining these fallacies and some of the dumbest ideas and stupidest things you'll hear an HITer say

Ok... first of all, he classifies all people who use a certain training method into a group of what sounds like idol worshipers. As if all people who use this training style preach the HIT "gospel" to the masses when their not working out. Forget the fact that HIT is simply a training style, not a religion. Not every person who uses this method is trying to be like Ann Raynd or Arthur Jones. Some people just find it effective.

Quote:

Two well known forms of hypertrophy occur in the body, Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and Myofibrillar hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is what a bodybuilder trains for.

Oh really? I thought a bodybuilder trained for both?

Quote:

Studies (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) show that single set training is not superior to multi-set training and that multi-set training has shown better results or has shown that training to muscular failure is not necessary.(8)

There are also just as many or more studies that show that more than one set IS NOT superior to one set training, and while training to musclar failure may not be NECESSARY for growth, it IS the best way to recruit all the fibers and make the quickest gain in strength.

Quote:

As you see all HITer's appear to believe that all muscle fibers are the same and that is the only reason why they would train like this, which I showed you above (yes I can go into much greater detail!) isn’t true. Yet you see, on some fibers mostly your type IA fibers, your one set to failure isn’t enough to place the respectable amount of tension on them long enough to recruit and fire each individual one because they use ATP at a VERY slow rate.(9) As a matter of fact they are so slow at firing that only about 20-35% of them are fired during the day, and these are the fibers that are responsible for keeping your body erect and supporting your lumbar spine. The only way to even come close (if its even possible) is to work with sets for up to 10 or so minutes. Marathon runners cannot even recruit and fire all IA fibers,

Muscles fire in response to load. The more overload, the greater response of ALL types of fibers.

This article is not all its cracked up to be.

Posted by: Yanick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

He forgot the third group that sees the positives in both and uses that to periodize their program accordingly.

For the record, that is my stance on it exactly.

DD, i see you're point, however i actually like the article its been a while since i read it but i like it nevertheless. I guess there will always be that HIT/Volume seperation in the iron world...can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

This is a useless debate. I feel HIT is a fantastic method for training. Others feel that HVT is a fantastic method of training. Or Westside. Or Max-OT. Many have had great results on both, so why are articles like the one posted above even written? To give some moron a sense of self-satisfaction in demeaning those who have different opinions?

I wouldn't touch volume training again with a 10 foot pole, but I'm not gonna run around and demean those who do. I'll support my philosophy and respectfully disagree with others who have different beliefs, and be civil about it. The link the Tekor Nor posted was a big fucking ridiculous poorly construed attack on people the author disagreed with. If you want to outline why HIT doesn't work, keep the personal barbs on the downlow. They only distort the point that is being put forth.

Posted by: camarosuper6

That is how I feel too.

If a certain program gives you the type of results you want, then stick with it! I'm not one for bashing other peoples programs, and take slight offense when someone tries to act like they have a superior method of training, when training is such an individual activity.

There are of course set principles of training, but many areas are still vague, and people respond slightly differently to different style of training. No one method can be called the "grail".

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Yanick, I agree. I think the article sucked ass to hades and back, not because it disagreed with me, but because it was full of unnecessary attacks.

But you sure are right about the never ending animosity between HIT and HVT :\

Posted by: Yanick

i can now see where you are coming from exactly. I have tried HIT in the past, i have also done very high volume training, i've done full body routines, westside and a few others i can't really remember right now. In the end, none of them was the 'grail' and gave me results at that particular time period. That is why as of now, i never do a 'program' i read from an article or something. I'd much rather read articles and books, take their principles and apply them to my own programs instead of having every little thing spoon fed to me. In the end its the individuals choice. And in response to one of the things in the article that i disagree with, i'll just say that people are people and whether you are a volume guy or a HIT guy there will always be those stupid people who just try to push their mindset on everybody, its unfair to slap a sticker on any HIT'er that they are closeminded etc etc, when there are guys on the other side of the line that do the same thing.

Posted by: ikam

A program will only work for so long. HIT and HVT are no exceptions.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

That is not true.

Posted by: Terok`Nor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Initially, he evoked a long retired thread by giving nothing but a link. I'm sure he could say what he thinks instead of pointing to a link that says it for him. Secondly, I don't personally feel that the link had of good substance. Hopefully tekor nor can elaborate on what he believes so I don't have to respond to a link.

I don't think anything of it. I only asked a question about the definition of intensity in the other thread and put this link up. I believe in meat pies sausage rolls and vegemite.

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikam

A program will only work for so long. HIT and HVT are no exceptions.

I disagree with that too.

Posted by: ikam

Quote:

I disagree with that too.

Quote:

That is not true.

Think about this. Think carefully, really carefully. Now let me answer your statements with this answer.

A program will only work for so long until it has to be changed. It can be the exercises, the reps, sets, tempo, rest periods yadda, yadda, yadda. When one variable is manipulated, the program has changed.

If you train to failure using one set or two there will come a point in a program where the gains will become non exsistant. A new stimulis is needed. That is fact. Therefore, a program will only work for so long.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

A program will only work for so long. HIT and HVT are no exceptions.

If you consider the load (weight), rep range, and days of rest variables that effect a program, you are right.

I've been doing one set to failure continuously and not hit a plateau (and on the occasion I do, it's typically because I didn't have enough rest, and add a day). The weights I lift go up, or the number of reps do. If you consider that changing the program, you are right.

Otherwise, I must disagree.

Posted by: ikam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

May I ask how long you have been using the HIT method?

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

46 weeks.

Posted by: ikam

Quote:

If you consider the load (weight), rep range, and days of rest variables that effect a program, you are right.

Yes those are variables. Therefore you are using a periodized form of HIT.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Rethinking what I said, I have to disagree, respectfully

. Traditional hit programs consider the days of rest a varying quality of the training itself. Modifying it is the rule, not the exception. And as far as load and rep goes, every single training program looks to progressively increase strength. Adding more to the load or more reps is an indicator of the programs success, not a variation of the program itself.

Posted by: ikam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Rethinking what I said, I have to disagree, respectfully

I was referring to the manipulation, not the addition of weight. The same applies to repetitions.

You can not train forever using the same method by simply increasing reps and load. As an individuals training age increases so do the variations in their program. What must go up must come down. So, at some point a form of periodzation has to be incorperated.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37