Question for Duncan Donuts [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Question for Duncan Donuts

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

Posted by: Leatherface

I know you're a big fan of HIT training and have been using it awhile.

There seems to be several variations of HIT routines published throughout with guys like Mentzer, Darden etc.

In your opinion, are there certain principles of HIT training that should definitely be adhered to in order to produce signifcant gains with this type of training, and other principles that appear overrated?

Thanks

Posted by: Fashong

What is HIT!?!?!?!

Posted by: soxmuscle

The One, The Only... High Intensity Training

Posted by: soxmuscle

Obviously I can't answer in full, but from what I have discussed with Duncan over this past year, he and I for that matter do not adhere to full body routines which is highly recommended by Darden and Arthur Jones.

If I were you, I would check out his old journal, its very informative.

Posted by: Mudge

Towards the end I think Mike was advocating training each bodypart every 18 days, I would say that is "overrated."

I know a guy who loves HIT, he isn't on this board though. He trains one day a week. Try asking his lifts and you never get a straight answer, unless you want to know what his static deadlift is.

Posted by: soxmuscle

I don't get how someone could grow by working out one day per week.

Posted by: clemson357

Quote:

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

I don't get how someone could grow by working out one day per week.

me niether

Posted by: clemsonsuckedme

Quote:

Originally Posted by clemson357

me niether

Me either.......Clemson works me out pretty hard 5 days a week.I have to say he does have some stamina.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Mentzer took some of the MedX research far to seriously and far to out of context to come up with once every 5-7 days training philosophy. His older Heavy Duty routines were better, IMO.

Darden's HIT is great. His frequency, volume, and machine gun style performance really does garner fantastic results. Problem is, it's so fucking hard that a handful of people in the world will probably do it right..

I've shyed away from HIT lately. I still do low volume, but change exercises every 4-5 weeks and usually perform 2-3 sets while doing 5-6 exercises per workout. I still do, however, workouts that are lucky to last for half an hour. I never understood the logic of high volume training..

Posted by: Mudge

High volume training = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Posted by: camarosuper6

Through the Arthur Jones Fiber Type testing method, I have found out that most all of my body is 75 percent or higher percent FT fibers... so moderate to low reps and low volume with high intensity works much better for myself.

Seems to me even with someone with 50/50 or even less (which is pretty rare from what I understand) FT fibers, a plan with moderate reps would be advised due to the fact FT fibers have a much higher potential for growth than ST fibers.,

I was also under the impression that sarcoplasmic hypertrohpy was due not to necessarily higher volume, but longer TUT. (80-120 seconds).

Posted by: Mudge

Poliquin says the stores are at least partially an adaptation from the high volume, which certainly sounds plausible to me. Longer energy requirements = more energy stores.

He has an article which explains how to steer your traiing towards functional hypertrophy which covers non-functional as well, and even how to obtain strength without size.

But unless I am doing super slow reps, an 80-120 second set is certainly what I'd call high volume if I dont lower my set count. I dont do anything that long except maybe legs right now.

Posted by: rburton

Quote:

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

I don't get how someone could grow by working out one day per week.

I train once weekly because work and family obligations prevent more frequent training, and I make acceptable gains. However, at my age (43) and years of training (28), I am able to experience "gains" on such a routine.

Posted by: rburton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

Mentzer took some of the MedX research far to seriously and far to out of context to come up with once every 5-7 days training philosophy. His older Heavy Duty routines were better, IMO.

Darden's HIT is great. His frequency, volume, and machine gun style performance really does garner fantastic results. Problem is, it's so fucking hard that a handful of people in the world will probably do it right..

I've shyed away from HIT lately. I still do low volume, but change exercises every 4-5 weeks and usually perform 2-3 sets while doing 5-6 exercises per workout. I still do, however, workouts that are lucky to last for half an hour. I never understood the logic of high volume training..

HIT/HD is an effective training protocol, if it is used correctly. I have always had success in growth and strength gains using this training. The key is to train to at least positive muscular failure on each set during each workout.

However, any person who trains this way requires a substantial recovery period. Training frequency and volume, therefore, must be regulated to ensure optimum gains. Many factors affect recovery and growth: work and family demands, age, genetics, and personality. When designing a HIT program, one must take into account each of these factors in order to experience success.

HIT, then, from personal experience, requires infrequent, low volume workouts. In most cases, whether using a full or split routine, train no more frequently than every three days with no more than 12 total sets per workout. As one increases intensity, one must decrease both volume and frequency.

Posted by: WilliamB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

High volume training = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Mudge you are a genius. Keep it up bro.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

High volume training = sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

When I said High Volume Training, I was referring to the type of anecdotes my brother relates to me from the gym: guys doing 6 sets of 20 exercises with 5 minute breaks in between.

I feel this can be obtained by switching up the exercises and doing as few as 2-3 sets.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

A lot of people think that by doing something as simple as increasing volume after a long period of lower volume, the muscle will look better (not flat) because of greater stores of glycogen and so forth in the muscles. It's an adaptive response, and it is very apparent as I've seen it happen to me after long durations of very low volume or to anyone who starts working out initially. The muscles take on a different fullness and texture.

Posted by: Mudge

Well, it all depends what a person is going for. I would rather have functional muscle than a bag full of sugar while I bench press 225 all day long, set after set, even though it looks like I could bench 5 plates for reps or something. So its not a style of training for me, but for some, high volume, moderate and even low intensity with dinky weights, is just how some people train.

I've seen some buffed looking guys in my gym and yet they lift like girls. They are in there longer than I am, and the weights they lift I swear they are new, but again they look pretty big with good cuts, and I dont compliment many people that they look "big." I'd rather be big, and strong, so my training is generally lower volume and heavier weights.

Functional vs Non-Functional Hypertrophy

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