HIT and HST

[TheOak84]

arnt they the same thing?

 

[GSP]

arnt they the same thing?

Not by a long shot. HIT has branched off so many times over the last decade that it's hard to nail down an exact definition. But for the most part, I'd say it means training low volume to failure (measure of intensity) with slower rep speeds.

HST is built around cycling rep ranges with intensity based off a % of max.

The differences will vary significantly though depending on which HIT program is being compared to HST.

 

[solarclimax]

I hear alot of people say that HIT is trash but HST is good.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

Oak, you told me awhile ago you did HST. Either you lied then, or you're being a retard now.

HIT is nothing like HST, and you know this.

 

[TheOak84]

Oak, you told me awhile ago you did HST. Either you lied then, or you're being a retard now.

HIT is nothing like HST, and you know this.

when i did hst i was using reps of 8-20 with rest pause and forced reps, 1-2 exercises 3 times a week.

in this HIT book, there are the same routines with the same principles...

i thought they were connected...

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

when i did hst i was using reps of 8-20 with rest pause and forced reps, 1-2 exercises 3 times a week.

in this HIT book, there are the same routines with the same principles...

i thought they were connected...

You didn't do HST, then.

 

[casualbb]

The training programs themselves can look similar, especially if you're taking HIT from Arthur Jones and not Mentzer.

the rationale behind them is vastly different

This ties back into a discussion we had awhile ago about training theory vs training behavior. Good theories can produce bad behaviors; bad theories can produce good behavior. see majustu quote in my sig.