HIT vs. Traditional Training

[Hubauer]

Which do you think is better for gaining mass??
High intensity training being defined as training with only 1-2 working sets to failure, also using techniques as rest-pause, negative only sets, and forced reps.
Traditional training being defined as training with 3-5 sets, usually only working to failure on the final sets.

Any logic behind a response would be greatly appriciated!
- Hubauer

 

[MDR]

When it comes to gaining mass, I seem to respond best to the more traditional approach. I like higher volume training when I am bulking.

 

[LAM]

in theory it sounds good but very hard to apply in the real world. to train with that type of intensity regularly naturally would be very difficult for most.

 

[MDR]

I think high-intensity training as defined above also makes me far more vulnerable to injury. Like LAM already stated, it sounds great, but can be very tricky.

 

[PushAndPull]

I don't think ethier one is better than the other for gaining mass. I just think it depends on how that individual responds to that program. I'd be willing to bet both Arnold and Dorian tried different kinds of programs before finding what worked best for them. I also think HIT(or a close variation) is do able for someone training natural. It's just not a long term routine(at least not for me). I was looking at FST-7, now that looks like a AAS routine. A very popular version of this routine is doing HIT then 7 sets of medium weight as a finisher.

 

[Phineas]

Eating is best for mass.

 

[Flathead]

That was kind of a tough one for me. I picked Traditional, but feel like I incorporate a some degree of HIT also. I do miss lifts, but don't rep to failure.

 

[Gazhole]

Neither. And both.

Limiting yourself to only one type of training is stupid. Do them both, and millions of others.

 

[Hubauer]

I'm definitely not limiting myself to one or the other... I'm currently alternating between the two, but I wanted to get you guys' opinions on what works best for you.

 

[Kleen]

I think it really comes down to time in the gym... If you have more time available then volume is good, if less time HIT is great. I prefer HIT but as a method of efficiency. Same results, less time in gym, but harder work. When it comes to less injury though traditional has the upper hand IMO.

I am doing high volume now on cycle then will go to HIT during pct. The heavier weights ands more recovery time should lend themselves well to keeping my mass I gain from Super-DMZ.

 

[racer10]

Man, I'd say both are equally good, the key is to use them both together, if you look like your slowing down on gains with traditional training, it might be a good idea to switch to HIT for a bit to break plateau or whatever you want to call it. Even if you do it for a few weeks then switch back to traditional the variance in exercise will be good for gettin back the faster gains. My .02.

 

[yellowmoomba]

Both work well - it depends on your diet more than the type of training (as long as you are working hard).

 

[Phineas]

Any form of resistance training = muscle stimuli

+

Rest/Sufficient calories and nutrients = muscle repair and strengthening

+

Additional calories (surplus) = mass.

 

[Zaphod]

I tend to go back and forth. The HIT is a bit shorter than traditional. Doing the HIT for too long destroys my shoulders and ignites a case of tendonitis in my forearms.

 

[ALBOB]

I'm definitely not limiting myself to one or the other... I'm currently alternating between the two, but I wanted to get you guys' opinions on what works best for you.

It's not a matter of what works best, it's a matter of what works best RIGHT NOW. I use one while it's working. When it stops working I switch to the other. That's what building muscle is all about, forcing your body to constantly adapt to a stimulus. When it has adapted, you switch to a different stimulus.

That being said, I always prefered a higher intensity program simply because it got me in and out of the gym faster. Now that I'm SLIGHTLY older than dirt I've had to back off of that. My joints just can't handle it the way they used to. Even Dorian Yates had to do that in his last couple of years of competition, for that same reason.

 

[MDR]

It's not a matter of what works best, it's a matter of what works best RIGHT NOW. I use one while it's working. When it stops working I switch to the other. That's what building muscle is all about, forcing your body to constantly adapt to a stimulus. When it has adapted, you switch to a different stimulus.

That being said, I always prefered a higher intensity program simply because it got me in and out of the gym faster. Now that I'm SLIGHTLY older than dirt I've had to back off of that. My joints just can't handle it the way they used to. Even Dorian Yates had to do that in his last couple of years of competition, for that same reason.

Maybe it's 'cause I am also slightly older than dirt, but I relate a lot to this post. High Intensity works great for me these days, but only for a short period of time. One of the reasons I am so fond of Deca is that it helps me feel so damn good. Eventually though, joint soreness catches up with me no matter what I do, and I need to switch things around. Can't train like I did at 25 anymore.

 

[Kleen]

I have found I can do HIT type training for 4 weeks then a week deload. I typically do a slight mixture of hit and volume though. I am a very big fan of full body workouts.

 

[Hubauer]

I have found I can do HIT type training for 4 weeks then a week deload.

This sounds like a pretty good plan. So what's a deload like for you? Just lighter weights and not to failure?