Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Is high volume ok?
- Thread starter einstein1
- Start date
I'm glad i grow on less - 40 minutes a session is fine by me.
It means i spend less time in the gym, and spend more time with the rest of my life.
I think that's the problem with a lot of beginners. They think that they need to do loads of sets, spend ages in the gym and get sick of it very quickley. They then lose interest after a while without making any real gains. Well, either that or they decide they are 'hard gainers' and spend money on bullshit supps or even steroids.
Shorter sessions mean i look forward to each session more.
Oh yeah...
It means i spend less time in the gym, and spend more time with the rest of my life.
I think that's the problem with a lot of beginners. They think that they need to do loads of sets, spend ages in the gym and get sick of it very quickley. They then lose interest after a while without making any real gains. Well, either that or they decide they are 'hard gainers' and spend money on bullshit supps or even steroids.
Shorter sessions mean i look forward to each session more.
Oh yeah...
w8liftinglady
New member
It's not exactly along the same lines as HIT,but i use a routine called "German Volume training" about twice a year,and it kicks my butt every time.You can look it up on testosterone.net.It is a pretty specific program,using specified rest periods and rep lengths.If you follow it religiously,you will definitely see gains in strength and size.
If you're looking for strength, less sets and longer rest periods are good to try. HIT will work well for increasing your strength. Low volume stopping short of failure will work even better.
I'm going to point my finger at nutrition. The reason most guys who workout think they are cursed with a slow recovery ability is they don't eat enough calories spread over 6 meals a day, and get 8-9 hours of sleep each night (consistently). I realize everyone may not want to or be able to do this and in those situations I think HIT is great.
Has anyone ever noticed how the HITters central philosophy is never at fault?
If someone made gains lifting more than twice a week or 40 minutes per workout, or 20 sets per bodypart, then they are either
a) on drugs
b) the "one in a million" guy who was blessed with great genetics
C'mon, most of us here have average genetics. There are a few guys with great genetics. But usually they aren't the ones "lucky" enough to get to work hard and grow off high volume. They are more likely not to workout much. They maybe lift weights every once in a while or naturally had 15 inch arms before they started lifting.
I'm going to point my finger at nutrition. The reason most guys who workout think they are cursed with a slow recovery ability is they don't eat enough calories spread over 6 meals a day, and get 8-9 hours of sleep each night (consistently). I realize everyone may not want to or be able to do this and in those situations I think HIT is great.
Has anyone ever noticed how the HITters central philosophy is never at fault?
If someone made gains lifting more than twice a week or 40 minutes per workout, or 20 sets per bodypart, then they are either
a) on drugs
b) the "one in a million" guy who was blessed with great genetics
C'mon, most of us here have average genetics. There are a few guys with great genetics. But usually they aren't the ones "lucky" enough to get to work hard and grow off high volume. They are more likely not to workout much. They maybe lift weights every once in a while or naturally had 15 inch arms before they started lifting.
Maximum Intensity
New member
Do you here that . . . that is the sound of inevitability. It is inevitable that this argument will never be resolved, because individuals respond to different stimuli and workloads. You can argue until your blue in the face that what you do is the best, but the fact of the matter is what works for you will not necessarily work for me. One must also examine his/her goals as well.
"...everyone is similar in their build, so within reason its both logical and possible to assume that a given program will work for most of the people most of the time."
You're right! Your response is the reason why it is a scientific theory, because HIT can be applied be everyone and it will work for everyone. The reason why most people say it doesn't work is because they are:
1. obsessed with volume
2. never tried to follow the logic of HIT
3. tried HIT workouts, but didn't follow it all the way through
You're right! Your response is the reason why it is a scientific theory, because HIT can be applied be everyone and it will work for everyone. The reason why most people say it doesn't work is because they are:
1. obsessed with volume
2. never tried to follow the logic of HIT
3. tried HIT workouts, but didn't follow it all the way through
MonStar1023
New member
What are your opinions on Titan Training or Serious Growth?
Maximum Intensity:"It is inevitable that this argument will never be resolved, because individuals respond to different stimuli and workloads. You can argue until your blue in the face that what you do is the best, but the fact of the matter is what works for you will not necessarily work for me. "
I would have to disagree with you on both of your arguments. If you mean stimuli to mean that different people need to use different poundages then you are correct. However everybody requires the same workload to stimulate growth. Here's the logic: Is the hardest rep of a set the first rep?the 5th?No it is the last rep, because it is that rep that requires more bodily resources to complete it. The last rep that takes you to + failure is requiring maximal intensity and contraction. If you could curl 120lbs for 10 reps but only did 4 do you think you would ever grow? No. If you did 8 reps would you grow? No, you must carry a set to positive failure if you are to stimulate an increase in strength and size.
Your second argument is what works for me may not work for you. That is also physiologically incorrect. Using the biecp as an example: Your bicep works the same way as mine. The sole purpose of the bicep is to contract. This is universal in all humans. Likewise, our bicep is composed of the same material, there is no human that is born with a bicep made out of fat, magnesium, or anything else wierd. Since we are similar in physiological structure, we also share the same stimulus needed to produce growth and size (training to + failure).
I would have to disagree with you on both of your arguments. If you mean stimuli to mean that different people need to use different poundages then you are correct. However everybody requires the same workload to stimulate growth. Here's the logic: Is the hardest rep of a set the first rep?the 5th?No it is the last rep, because it is that rep that requires more bodily resources to complete it. The last rep that takes you to + failure is requiring maximal intensity and contraction. If you could curl 120lbs for 10 reps but only did 4 do you think you would ever grow? No. If you did 8 reps would you grow? No, you must carry a set to positive failure if you are to stimulate an increase in strength and size.
Your second argument is what works for me may not work for you. That is also physiologically incorrect. Using the biecp as an example: Your bicep works the same way as mine. The sole purpose of the bicep is to contract. This is universal in all humans. Likewise, our bicep is composed of the same material, there is no human that is born with a bicep made out of fat, magnesium, or anything else wierd. Since we are similar in physiological structure, we also share the same stimulus needed to produce growth and size (training to + failure).
