Why all the ripping on H.I.T.?

[shaolin]

Two years ago I did the Bill Phillip's 3 month contest and used my own modified version of High Intensity Training as best I understand it.

My workouts were incredibly short and intense. For example: on chest I would start with one set max of full extension bar dips (started with 8 - ended with around 30), then did one warmup set and one workout set of flat or incline bench (not both in the same session) and the same with a cable or dumbell flye or pec deck exercise. Total time: about 15 minutes every 5 days.

In my youth, I competed in power lifting at a novice level. I did chest for about two hours every 3 days. My best certified lift was 245 at 148 pounds and 265 in the gym.

Now 20 years later, I thought my best days were behind me, but low and behold, I started at 195*5 and ended at 245*5 going up almost 5 pounds per week! On leg extensions I could do 1*250 at the beginning and ended doing 12*250.

These numbers probably only impress me, but the strength gains were phenominal in a guy that has little natural ability and has trained for 25 years at almost the same level, no matter what I tried.

So, once again, unless you like to spend all day in the gym, why rip on the only training method that has ever really worked well for me?

BTW, my results were not magazine quality, but I lost 4" on my waist, lost 12 pounds of fat and gained 12 pounds of muscle. My weight stayed the same but bodyfat went down 30%. (19% to 13%)

 

[NFG123]

H.I.T.

We rip on H.I.T. because it sucks.

 

[mattcanning99]

Re: H.I.T.

We rip on H.I.T. because it sucks.

HIT was popularized by the success of two very key bodybuilders - mike mentzer and dorian yates - two classic mesomorphs. the thing to note is that mesomorphs are naturally more prone to gain muscle mass easier than most people. that said, will HIT only work for mesormorphs? well no, but more than likely, you will not see HIT as anything special if you are not an ectomorph...it may work ok, but nothing great, if you are naturally endomorphic for example. ive never personally done HIT and i am naturally ectomorphic...ive used recreational bodybuilding as the basis of my workouts since i started a year ago, and have made incredible gains, so i wouldn't do HIT, except maybe for a session or two to test it out or to shock the system into some new growth. what im saying is what worked the best for one guy or two guys who happened to be great may or may not work for you...i would say work with it for a month, see if you like the gains you are making, assess everything else (diet, etc), and come to a conclusion that way...be sure to experiment and make a decision. a lot of the guys on this forum are very experienced and offer good advice, but don't take their advice or opinions of something as final...find out for yourself.

matt

 

[Charlie B]

I can tolerate people that are truly mentally challenged, but I just can't understand people that are afflicted with self induced stupidity and ignorance. I guess for some its a way of life. HD was popularized because it worked and continues to work. Now, that said, a good debate is always good, but unless one has truly experienced something then how can they intelligently discuss, much less condemn it?


It was put even better by Maeterlinck, "Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past." Bottom line, many people will continue to "rip" what they don't understand and resist change with everything they've got.

 

[JustinM]

I can tolerate people that are truly mentally challenged, but I just can't understand people that are afflicted with self induced stupidity and ignorance. I guess for some its a way of life. HD was popularized because it worked and continues to work. Now, that said, a good debate is always good, but unless one has truly experienced something then how can they intelligently discuss, much less condemn it?


It was put even better by Maeterlinck, "Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past." Bottom line, many people will continue to "rip" what they don't understand and resist change with everything they've got.

great post

 

[Arioch]

I do not have a problem with HIT as such, but with the numerous statements such as "HIT is the best way to train for (insert whatever goal here)." Crap. It may be the best way for some people, but it is certainly not the best way for others. There is way that I train that works very well for me, and as I continue to modify it, it becomes better. I would never be so naive as to assert that it is the best way for anyone else, let alone everyone else, to train.

Numerous statements such as "research shows" followed by not citing the research. This often occurs even in the HIT FAQ. If I am going to cite research, I am going to back it up.

Insulting other training programs and philosophies. This is both unprofessional and immature. Especially calling anyone who lifts or advises lifting in a ballistic manner a fool (once again this occurs in the HIT FAQ). What a wonderful way to insult Olympic athletes who have struggled to represent their countries in international competition. By way of example, I offer Tommy Kono, who, in addition to setting 26 world records, wining world championships, and Olympic medals (including a gold), was proud to represent the United States of America. He was proud of this despite the fact that like many other Japanese-Americans, he was placed in a "relocation center" during WWII as a child. This was a man who, when having a chance to break a world record that his teammate set just prior to his attempt, turned it down, stating that "An American held the record, and that was good enough." A man with that depth of character deserves respect, not ridicule.

Other problems: "As you get stronger, you must do less exercise." Why? conditioning can be improved as well. Witness the emphasis on raising GPP (general physical preparedness) using the conjugate training system. It works. It is not for everybody, however, and I would never state that to improve as an athlete, someone must train this way.

Another problem with the HIT program in general that I have is their argument against training specifity, where it is stated that either a movement is specific or it is not. Why? Why it is impossible for some movements to be more effective at enhancing one's ability to perform certain tasks. I am aware of no studies that compare the squat to the leg press. No hip extension occurs when leg pressing but a certain degree will always occur when squatting, and hip extension is an important part of achieving a superior vertical jump. If I had to pick between the two exercises, it is a rather easy call to make.

Other problems with their constant bashing of ballistic training. Several studies have shown a wide variety of beneficial effects of velocity specific training. (reference available upon request

I will once again state that overall, my biggest problem with HIT training is not the training itself, it is the attitude an conduct of certain HIT authors that really gets under my skin.

And, just so that people do not think I am unfairly bashing HIT, I was irritated with quite a few speakers at the last NSCA conference I went to. Irritated enough, in fact, that I have not gone to another one in the three years since.

 

[gymtime]

I do not have a problem with HIT as such, but with the numerous statements such as "HIT is the best way to train for (insert whatever goal here)." Crap. It may be the best way for some people, but it is certainly not the best way for others. There is way that I train that works very well for me, and as I continue to modify it, it becomes better. I would never be so naive as to assert that it is the best way for anyone else, let alone everyone else, to train.

Numerous statements such as "research shows" followed by not citing the research. This often occurs even in the HIT FAQ. If I am going to cite research, I am going to back it up.

I wish more people thought this way.

 

[Blood&Iron]

I do not have a problem with HIT as such, but with the numerous statements such as "HIT is the best way to train for (insert whatever goal here)." Crap. It may be the best way for some people, but it is certainly not the best way for others. There is way that I train that works very well for me, and as I continue to modify it, it becomes better. I would never be so naive as to assert that it is the best way for anyone else, let alone everyone else, to train.

Numerous statements such as "research shows" followed by not citing the research. This often occurs even in the HIT FAQ. If I am going to cite research, I am going to back it up.

Insulting other training programs and philosophies. This is both unprofessional and immature. Especially calling anyone who lifts or advises lifting in a ballistic manner a fool (once again this occurs in the HIT FAQ). What a wonderful way to insult Olympic athletes who have struggled to represent their countries in international competition. By way of example, I offer Tommy Kono, who, in addition to setting 26 world records, wining world championships, and Olympic medals (including a gold), was proud to represent the United States of America. He was proud of this despite the fact that like many other Japanese-Americans, he was placed in a "relocation center" during WWII as a child. This was a man who, when having a chance to break a world record that his teammate set just prior to his attempt, turned it down, stating that "An American held the record, and that was good enough." A man with that depth of character deserves respect, not ridicule.

Other problems: "As you get stronger, you must do less exercise." Why? conditioning can be improved as well. Witness the emphasis on raising GPP (general physical preparedness) using the conjugate training system. It works. It is not for everybody, however, and I would never state that to improve as an athlete, someone must train this way.

Another problem with the HIT program in general that I have is their argument against training specifity, where it is stated that either a movement is specific or it is not. Why? Why it is impossible for some movements to be more effective at enhancing one's ability to perform certain tasks. I am aware of no studies that compare the squat to the leg press. No hip extension occurs when leg pressing but a certain degree will always occur when squatting, and hip extension is an important part of achieving a superior vertical jump. If I had to pick between the two exercises, it is a rather easy call to make.

Other problems with their constant bashing of ballistic training. Several studies have shown a wide variety of beneficial effects of velocity specific training. (reference available upon request

I will once again state that overall, my biggest problem with HIT training is not the training itself, it is the attitude an conduct of certain HIT authors that really gets under my skin.

And, just so that people do not think I am unfairly bashing HIT, I was irritated with quite a few speakers at the last NSCA conference I went to. Irritated enough, in fact, that I have not gone to another one in the three years since.

While there a number of things here with which I disagree, on the whole I would concur. But then again, as I've written a good many times, dogmatism is endemic to the *entire* lifting community. I think part of the reason HIT advocates are so critical of other approaches is that they are often ridiculed and attacking other approaches is a sort of defensive mechanism. Further, the father of HIT, Arthur Jones, was a horrible crank(Though to be fair he is/was incredibly intelligent.) and his "I'm right and the rest of the world is utter buffoons" attitude has been imparted to many in the HIT community.

 

[Rockafella Skank]

Spot on post, Arioch.

... never be so naive as to assert that it is the best way for anyone else, let alone everyone else, to train.

How true: "... never be so naive." We should never be so arrogant, either.

 

[NFG123]

Why we rip on HIT?

All, Foremost: do not get preachy on this subject, and do not degrade my post because I answer a six month old question with nothing other than my personal belief: that HIT is a flawed system relegated to genetically superior bodybuilders who built their physique on Dianabol (such as Mentzer himself). Truth being, on successive dosages of dbol, cycle after cycle, you can get big doing pretty much anything: even HIT. Listen to me for a second ....

I submit that there is some range of optimal intensity in training that allows for adequate stimulation but also for enough volume and frequency of training to promote hypertrophy (increases in muscle mass) and other favorable health related changes including a decrease in body fat.

It may be as others have suggested that very limited volume and frequency is required for strength increases - just some overload - but that more volume and frequency may be a better stimulus for hypertrophy. Notice that I am not saying that the stimuli for strength increases and hypertrophy are completely different. The stimuli may be overlapping but there also may be other stimuli and other mechanisms involved for strength increases compared to hypertrophy.

For example, absolute strength increases in the squat may only require one maximum set per week. But, hypertrophy may be better stimulated by the incorporation of more than one exercise for quads in a routine with a frequency of twice per week. Being as most people experience "phenomenol" strength increases while on this system, I submit this is probably the case. In order to train twice per week to optimize hypertrophy, it may be necessary to moderate intensity to compensate for recovery. Hence a High Intensity System may not be optimal.

That is, when intensity is too high while strength gains may be apparent, frequency and volume have to be decreased to the extent that the resulting training may not optimize hypertrophy especially for the individuals who are training naturally and are not chemically enhanced.

One may also add that extremely high intensity may truly erode effective training, as a person gets older through hormonal and other changes that increase required recovery time. I find that older people take a lot longer to recover from an injury, why do I think they can bombard themselves with a series of super high intensity stimuli and actually recover within any reasonable time? They can't.

However, at any age, it may be that a training protocol that is so high in intensity that a person is reduced to doing 4 to 8 exercises for one set each once every 7 to 10 days may increase strength but simply not be very effective for other valued facets of training.

Rather than seeing such a decrease in volume and frequency as a desirable and natural evolution of training, a person using such protocols because they can't do more volume within a session or recover from the extreme intensity of their limited volume routine perhaps is following a faulty methodology.

Could it be that such reduced training frequency and volume actually contributes to deconditioning that then leads to a further inability to train frequently or with much volume?

Importantly, many advocates of HIT say that their training is based on science that points toward the efficacy of low volume, infrequent training, with a gradual reduction of volume and frequency over a training career. The actual science presents a different picture.

Many studies suggest that there is no real difference in strength or hypertrophy outcomes from using single compared to multiple sets. This is touted by HIT as the reasoning behind using an extremely limited volume approach, but in and of itself is poor science: There is no evidence, however, that single set protocols are superior.

The studies showing the efficacy of single set protocols, when a protocol has been used that works all major muscle groups, have used a volume and frequency of training that is GREATER than training with a limited number of movements once per week. The protocols in these studies typically aim to train a person to the point where they slightly progress from the prior workout or where the last correctly performed repetition in a set is completed. No studies have been done training one bodypart completely every two weeks as suggested and advocated by Mike Mentzer. None.

The goal of "metabolically devastating" a person - reaching a state of physical collapse seemingly cherished in some quarters - has decidedly not been part of the scientifically conducted studies and has never been demonstrated to be essential for gaining strength and muscle mass. Once again, no studies: none.

If we were really dedicated to following science, we would train following the protocols in these studies. Additionally, there is no evidence that over a training career, people necessarily can tolerate less and less volume and frequency. This is suggested so frequently on this message board: HIT are crying "overtraining" if any more volume is done beyond the protocol that they endorse. However, this response is purely a matter of speculation - as is my musing that middle aged to older athletes need significantly more recovery time. Hence, confounding factors "over a training career" leading to a decrease in recovery ability may be no more than a factor of increased age.

Again, these points suggest that in the absence of any data, many of us have been overdosing on intensity and then rationalizing the predictable results (e.g., inability to recover) as to high a volume - by cloaking them in science - but where there is no science to support what we're doing.

Many of us also take pride in training differently not only from most everyone else that resistance trains, but from any other kind of athletic training. I'm not suggesting that we totally abandon our unique approach to training and adopt the long, drawn out sub-maximal training models that are followed by most athletes.

But, yet, doesn't it seem odd that throughout centuries of athletic training there was no one who discovered that one maximum sprint per week, one maximal lift, or one maximal 10-mile run per week was all that was required to improve? Aren't we being presumptuous in believing that no one before us had ever tried very brief, very infrequent, very high intensity training?

If we assume over the years that some athletes did try this approach, why is there seemingly no recorded instance of athletes sticking with such training?

Why is it the case that even athletes who do train in a very high intensity manner such as using intervals in their training regime do not do such intervals at 100% effort all the time? Why do such athletes design interval training workouts in away that they can gradually adapt to more speed over an extended series of workouts and not breakdown? Are we surprised that they don't go 100% from the start of these workouts or that periodically they do less intensive training? Why is there a swing now towards a periodized approach to training in bodybuilding that seems to incorporate the idea that atheletes have had all this time: the human body simply cannot keep training at 100% intensity and make continual gains. On a temporary basis it works fine: in the long run, recovery seems to be inhibited and stagnation ultimately results.

Are most athletes really wimps at heart?

Or, without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water, is there something we can learn from other long-standing training models or for that matter how strength athletes and bodybuilders have traditionally trained?

This is why I rip on HIT. A scientific based way to training that misinterprets studies and uses them to support its fundamental principles. I also feel this methodology was developed quickly in order to sell nautilus equipment. If you look at the way it is designed, it seems very intriguing that it may have such a vested interest.

To finalize. I'm not saying HIT doesn't "work." Im sure it does for some people-probably well-for the short run. I myself, have experienced no benefit from this type of training-or my friends who had tried this system. Like any other training methodology-repeated again and again-it is not the "best" or "only" way to train. In my opinion, it may be used, with success as a break from your normal routine WHICH WORKS OPTIMALLY FOR YOUR BODY. However, I submit that HIT should not become a substitution for the exercises, set and rep schemes that produce the greatest hypertrophy for the individual.