Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Mesofreaky
New member
the arguments against HIT here are a joke.
Why all the ripping on H.I.T.?
- Thread starter shaolin
- Start date
mattcanning99
New member
MSN chat, topic: HIT
Russell says:
the smart thign to do would be to go HIT style
Matt « says:
really
Russell says:
give himself plenty of recovery time
Russell says:
see overtraining is one of two things, lack of nutrition or operating beyond your bodies practical efficiency
Matt « says:
largely nutrition for many
Russell says:
practical efficieny is the level of protein your body can process in a given time frame under practical situations
Russell says:
due to my genetics and my situation, My practical efficiency over the summer was very high
Russell says:
hence my gains, now during school it has dropped drastically
Matt « says:
stress levels
Russell says:
time constraints, its not practical to eat 7-9 meals a day anymore
Matt « says:
lol ,true
Russell says:
for someone to reach there tru genetic peak they would have to maintain a perfect balance between volume and frequency and have an IV of constant protein at the exact top level it could handle at once
Matt « says:
says yates
Russell says:
yates used, which improves your protein processing ability over 2x, more or less doubling your practical effiency taking you beyond yoru peak
Matt « says:
are you serious ? for ectomorphs too ?
Russell says:
30-40 grams seems to be the number studies point to for one sitting for a natural, a user can process 100+ grams of protein at one sitting
Matt « says:
unreal
Russell says:
yates had a good volume frequency balance as well
Russell says:
he had the best mentor for it
Matt « says:
mike ?
Russell says:
yep
Matt « says:
lol true...you sure it has nothing to do with bodytype ?
Russell says:
ever play old racing games like for the NES
Matt « says:
yes
Russell says:
usually you have several cars
Russell says:
one tops out high, one has excellent accelleration , and one handles good
Matt « says:
yep
Russell says:
now my sister used to race good with the car with all the handling( also second in top speed) I had the accelleration car
Russell says:
we both killed the game and were about even against each other
Russell says:
everyone is fundamentally the same and since reaching your tru peak as a natural is unpractical its all about finding the strategy for the tweaks your body systems have
Russell says:
I had all the accelleration, I could race on the edge and reckless. she had all the handling she could corner perfect and pick up time in the curves. and ecto can kill a meso or endo come cut time
Russell says:
an endo will kill a meso or ecto come bulk time
Matt « says:
true, all true
Russell says:
I was given abnormal recovery, I can train alot more frequently
Russell says:
the smart thign to do would be to go HIT style
Matt « says:
really
Russell says:
give himself plenty of recovery time
Russell says:
see overtraining is one of two things, lack of nutrition or operating beyond your bodies practical efficiency
Matt « says:
largely nutrition for many
Russell says:
practical efficieny is the level of protein your body can process in a given time frame under practical situations
Russell says:
due to my genetics and my situation, My practical efficiency over the summer was very high
Russell says:
hence my gains, now during school it has dropped drastically
Matt « says:
stress levels
Russell says:
time constraints, its not practical to eat 7-9 meals a day anymore
Matt « says:
lol ,true
Russell says:
for someone to reach there tru genetic peak they would have to maintain a perfect balance between volume and frequency and have an IV of constant protein at the exact top level it could handle at once
Matt « says:
says yates
Russell says:
yates used, which improves your protein processing ability over 2x, more or less doubling your practical effiency taking you beyond yoru peak
Matt « says:
are you serious ? for ectomorphs too ?
Russell says:
30-40 grams seems to be the number studies point to for one sitting for a natural, a user can process 100+ grams of protein at one sitting
Matt « says:
unreal
Russell says:
yates had a good volume frequency balance as well
Russell says:
he had the best mentor for it
Matt « says:
mike ?
Russell says:
yep
Matt « says:
lol true...you sure it has nothing to do with bodytype ?
Russell says:
ever play old racing games like for the NES
Matt « says:
yes
Russell says:
usually you have several cars
Russell says:
one tops out high, one has excellent accelleration , and one handles good
Matt « says:
yep
Russell says:
now my sister used to race good with the car with all the handling( also second in top speed) I had the accelleration car
Russell says:
we both killed the game and were about even against each other
Russell says:
everyone is fundamentally the same and since reaching your tru peak as a natural is unpractical its all about finding the strategy for the tweaks your body systems have
Russell says:
I had all the accelleration, I could race on the edge and reckless. she had all the handling she could corner perfect and pick up time in the curves. and ecto can kill a meso or endo come cut time
Russell says:
an endo will kill a meso or ecto come bulk time
Matt « says:
true, all true
Russell says:
I was given abnormal recovery, I can train alot more frequently
Many of you have great aurguments, and like I said earlier, an honest debate is always a healthy thing. Now, I would like to clear one thing up, I believe that the philosophy behind the High Intensity theory is very sound and logical. That does not mean that one HIT workout plan is the "Saving Grace" and all others suck. If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where there're going, and the best way to get there. Mike used to say that the biggest problem with doing multiple sets / exercises, was that if it wasn't working, which way do you go from there, up or down? At least with his methodology, you got no where to go but up. Bodybuilders think about this, if you were to get the same results spending 20-30 mins, twice a week as you did spending up to 2-5 hrs, 3-6 times a week, wouldn't that be worth it?
Lastly, I've never been a competitive lifter, so if I am way off base on this next point I'm sorry, and please correct me. Unlike a bodybuilder, a power lifter is not just concerned with building muscle. In order to be competitive he or she must have developed neuromuscular efficiency and ensured that their lifting technique is as precise and efficient as possible. The lifters that I have encountered spend the majority of their energy working on these goals. I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles.
Lastly, I've never been a competitive lifter, so if I am way off base on this next point I'm sorry, and please correct me. Unlike a bodybuilder, a power lifter is not just concerned with building muscle. In order to be competitive he or she must have developed neuromuscular efficiency and ensured that their lifting technique is as precise and efficient as possible. The lifters that I have encountered spend the majority of their energy working on these goals. I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles.
Arioch
New member
Quote
"Lastly, I've never been a competitive lifter, so if I am way off base on this next point I'm sorry, and please correct me. Unlike a bodybuilder, a power lifter is not just concerned with building muscle. In order to be competitive he or she must have developed neuromuscular efficiency and ensured that their lifting technique is as precise and efficient as possible. The lifters that I have encountered spend the majority of their energy working on these goals. I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles."
How would a powerlifting workout, specifically one using the conjugate lifting system, be a modified application of the HIT principles? Especially with the emphasis on maximal acceleration, multiple sets, lack of eccentric phase, etc?
And also a great deal of work is spent on conditioning to improve the ability to handle a higher volume of training.
Just curious why you think this.
"Lastly, I've never been a competitive lifter, so if I am way off base on this next point I'm sorry, and please correct me. Unlike a bodybuilder, a power lifter is not just concerned with building muscle. In order to be competitive he or she must have developed neuromuscular efficiency and ensured that their lifting technique is as precise and efficient as possible. The lifters that I have encountered spend the majority of their energy working on these goals. I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles."
How would a powerlifting workout, specifically one using the conjugate lifting system, be a modified application of the HIT principles? Especially with the emphasis on maximal acceleration, multiple sets, lack of eccentric phase, etc?
And also a great deal of work is spent on conditioning to improve the ability to handle a higher volume of training.
Just curious why you think this.
Simple, as I said earlier, "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there.
I thought my message was pretty clear, but in order make an objective evaluation/comparison I guess you have to know the theory behing HIT. Do you? I did not say that a powerlifting workout was the same as a high intensity or heavy duty workout, I said that they share some of the same training principles. If you get a chance why don't you submit what you believe the training principles of HIT are and those of a powerlifting workout.
I thought my message was pretty clear, but in order make an objective evaluation/comparison I guess you have to know the theory behing HIT. Do you? I did not say that a powerlifting workout was the same as a high intensity or heavy duty workout, I said that they share some of the same training principles. If you get a chance why don't you submit what you believe the training principles of HIT are and those of a powerlifting workout.
Arioch
New member
This is what I was questioning:
"I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles."
And I was asking you to explain it.
Not : "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
However, I will try to discuss both.
I disagree with the first quote. I will compare guidelines from the HIT FAQ with the general guidelines of the conjugate training method for powerlifting as expoused by Simmons. Much of his work is based on research and theories by Siff, Zatsiorsky, Prilepin, Roman, and Medvedyev.
A. Definition of intensity. Why did the HIT camp feel the need to change it? HIT Definition: "Intensity can be defined as the percent of your momentary ability to perform an exercise."
Standard definition:" % of one rep max." This will be relevant later so I mentioning for more than one reason.
B. "Hard - as hard as possible in good form." This should be true of all training programs, and was true even before Weightlifting was introduced as an Olympic event more than one hundred years ago. So this is an application of a principle of long standing, not an application of a HIT principle.
C. "Brief - 1-3 sets of a few basic exercises performed in an hour or less." Using the conjugate method, one will often perform 10-12 sets of squats, or 8 - 10 sets of benches.
D. "Infrequent - No more than three times per week, often times two, or even one." 4 - 6 times a week, plus exercises sessions to increase GPP, plus recovery workouts.
E. "Safe - HIT is intended to be an extremely productive protocol, but also one that stresses safety. One of the fundamental goals of strength training is to act as injury preventative." Once again, this has been a principle of long standing, and keep your athletes healthy is the number goal of any good coach, and has been for many more decades, if not centuries.
F. "Intensity is defined as "a percentage of momentary ability". In other words, intensity relates to the degree of "inroad" or muscular fatigue, made into muscle at any given instant." How can one possible measure this?
"Research, going back almost 100 years now has conclusively shown that intensity is the single most important factor in obtaining results from strength training." I disagree again. It has been shown to be a factor, not the single most important one. And at least two of the studies referenced use the tradition definition of intensity, not the HIT definition. Other factors involved in strength training, such as maximal effort and maximal acceleration, have long been held to be important, if not equally important.
G. "Follow the "double progression" technique in regards to repetitions and weight." This is fine, and has long been a standard. To improve, you must work harder.
H. "Perform 1 to 3 sets of each exercise." See above.
I. "Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions." Why? This depends on your goals.
J. "Perform each repetition with proper form." Once again a standard long before HIT.
"A repetition should be performed by raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner. "Explosive" lifting is not only non-productive, but also dangerous.
This is one of the issues that is stressed most by HIT advocates. Anytime, anyone, be they Mr. Universe, or some "expert" trainer, whomever, tells you to move a weight fast, "ballistically", in an "explosive" style just walk away.
That person is a fool."
Several problems here, but I will basically state that one trains in a ballistic manner, both as a powerlifter and weightlifter, to learn to generate as much force as possilbe. This is, after all, essential to the goal of moving as much weight as possible. And as to the issue of safety, just because one is moving a weight quickly, this does not mean that it is done with poor technique. This is one of the reasons that lower intensity lifting is done in training, to insure that when the intensity is increased, one's skills are strong enough to ensure proper technique.
K. "Use a full range of motion." This is fine for most exercise, but partials are often used to work both specific sticking points within a lift, such as lockouts on the bench, or pulls from a certain height or to a certain height.
L. "Train for no more than one hour per workout." Not really a problem here.
M. "Move quickly between sets." Once again, the conditioning standard has been in place for more than one hundred years.
N. "Exercise the major muscle groups first." Decent general guideline, but numerous exceptions occur when a weak muscle or muscle group is limiting performance on a specific lift.
O. "Do not split your routine - do not work your body on successive days." See earlier comments about conditioning.
P. "Get ample rest after each training session." The muscles are not the only thing being exercised, and often, are relatively incedental to the goal of the workout when one is lifting to improve skill. The CNS recovers much faster, and so the highly skilled lifts can be trained far more often, such as the snatch and the clean and jerk.
Q. "Take periodic layoffs." Well, ok, but not necessarily. Many well trained athletes will only take a couple of days off after a competition, and are back in the gym trying to improve their skill levels quickly.
R. "As you get stronger decrease the frequency of workouts and/or amount of sets." Crap, conditioning should be improving as well. Witness the frequency of training of the most successful teams in the world (Westside, Soviet Dynamo Club, Bulgarians, Greece, etc.).
S. "Do not try to "mimic" a sports skill in the weightroom." See previous post about specific skill training/lifting.
T. "Avoid Orthopaedically Unsound Movements." What in the hell is wrong with Good Mornings, bent over rows, or t-bar rows?
Those pretty much seem to be the guidelines, and the few I do not disagree with I would still not term HIT principles, as they were principles that were common knowledge long before Jones ever came along.
As for the following "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
Well, once again, this was the standard thing to do long before Mentzer even opened his mouth. And I do not want to turn this into a rant on Mentzer, as this discussion is staying reasonable.
"I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles."
And I was asking you to explain it.
Not : "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
However, I will try to discuss both.
I disagree with the first quote. I will compare guidelines from the HIT FAQ with the general guidelines of the conjugate training method for powerlifting as expoused by Simmons. Much of his work is based on research and theories by Siff, Zatsiorsky, Prilepin, Roman, and Medvedyev.
A. Definition of intensity. Why did the HIT camp feel the need to change it? HIT Definition: "Intensity can be defined as the percent of your momentary ability to perform an exercise."
Standard definition:" % of one rep max." This will be relevant later so I mentioning for more than one reason.
B. "Hard - as hard as possible in good form." This should be true of all training programs, and was true even before Weightlifting was introduced as an Olympic event more than one hundred years ago. So this is an application of a principle of long standing, not an application of a HIT principle.
C. "Brief - 1-3 sets of a few basic exercises performed in an hour or less." Using the conjugate method, one will often perform 10-12 sets of squats, or 8 - 10 sets of benches.
D. "Infrequent - No more than three times per week, often times two, or even one." 4 - 6 times a week, plus exercises sessions to increase GPP, plus recovery workouts.
E. "Safe - HIT is intended to be an extremely productive protocol, but also one that stresses safety. One of the fundamental goals of strength training is to act as injury preventative." Once again, this has been a principle of long standing, and keep your athletes healthy is the number goal of any good coach, and has been for many more decades, if not centuries.
F. "Intensity is defined as "a percentage of momentary ability". In other words, intensity relates to the degree of "inroad" or muscular fatigue, made into muscle at any given instant." How can one possible measure this?
"Research, going back almost 100 years now has conclusively shown that intensity is the single most important factor in obtaining results from strength training." I disagree again. It has been shown to be a factor, not the single most important one. And at least two of the studies referenced use the tradition definition of intensity, not the HIT definition. Other factors involved in strength training, such as maximal effort and maximal acceleration, have long been held to be important, if not equally important.
G. "Follow the "double progression" technique in regards to repetitions and weight." This is fine, and has long been a standard. To improve, you must work harder.
H. "Perform 1 to 3 sets of each exercise." See above.
I. "Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions." Why? This depends on your goals.
J. "Perform each repetition with proper form." Once again a standard long before HIT.
"A repetition should be performed by raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner. "Explosive" lifting is not only non-productive, but also dangerous.
This is one of the issues that is stressed most by HIT advocates. Anytime, anyone, be they Mr. Universe, or some "expert" trainer, whomever, tells you to move a weight fast, "ballistically", in an "explosive" style just walk away.
That person is a fool."
Several problems here, but I will basically state that one trains in a ballistic manner, both as a powerlifter and weightlifter, to learn to generate as much force as possilbe. This is, after all, essential to the goal of moving as much weight as possible. And as to the issue of safety, just because one is moving a weight quickly, this does not mean that it is done with poor technique. This is one of the reasons that lower intensity lifting is done in training, to insure that when the intensity is increased, one's skills are strong enough to ensure proper technique.
K. "Use a full range of motion." This is fine for most exercise, but partials are often used to work both specific sticking points within a lift, such as lockouts on the bench, or pulls from a certain height or to a certain height.
L. "Train for no more than one hour per workout." Not really a problem here.
M. "Move quickly between sets." Once again, the conditioning standard has been in place for more than one hundred years.
N. "Exercise the major muscle groups first." Decent general guideline, but numerous exceptions occur when a weak muscle or muscle group is limiting performance on a specific lift.
O. "Do not split your routine - do not work your body on successive days." See earlier comments about conditioning.
P. "Get ample rest after each training session." The muscles are not the only thing being exercised, and often, are relatively incedental to the goal of the workout when one is lifting to improve skill. The CNS recovers much faster, and so the highly skilled lifts can be trained far more often, such as the snatch and the clean and jerk.
Q. "Take periodic layoffs." Well, ok, but not necessarily. Many well trained athletes will only take a couple of days off after a competition, and are back in the gym trying to improve their skill levels quickly.
R. "As you get stronger decrease the frequency of workouts and/or amount of sets." Crap, conditioning should be improving as well. Witness the frequency of training of the most successful teams in the world (Westside, Soviet Dynamo Club, Bulgarians, Greece, etc.).
S. "Do not try to "mimic" a sports skill in the weightroom." See previous post about specific skill training/lifting.
T. "Avoid Orthopaedically Unsound Movements." What in the hell is wrong with Good Mornings, bent over rows, or t-bar rows?
Those pretty much seem to be the guidelines, and the few I do not disagree with I would still not term HIT principles, as they were principles that were common knowledge long before Jones ever came along.
As for the following "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
Well, once again, this was the standard thing to do long before Mentzer even opened his mouth. And I do not want to turn this into a rant on Mentzer, as this discussion is staying reasonable.
In Defense of HIT
Modern Bodybuilding does define "Intensity" as it is in HIT terminology. Why do you think Weider, Poliquin, etc suggest using advanced techniques (supersets, decreased rest between sets, compound sets, etc) to increase "intensity." Does doing these increase the % of 1 RM you use? Certainly not. In fact, it must be LOWERED as a result, but the OUTCOME is definitely increased intensity.
Secondly, the goal of HIT and powerlifting are certainly different. While an increased in muscle size leads to strength gains, and increase in strength gains means increased muscle size, there is no 1:1 ratio. If so, you could look at any one person and estimate how much he or she can perform on a maximal lift such as the squat, etc, simply by SIZE. However, we ALL KNOW this is not the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be optimal rep ranges for SIZE vs STRENGTH gains. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they certainly aren't exactly the same.
As I stated earlier, I too, believe SOME of the principles of HIT are worked into Powerlifting, however, as Arioch as pointed out correctly, these are principles that seem to be true to MANY OTHER BODYBUILDING TECHNIQUES! HIT certainly is not powerlifting, and you cannot use a powerlifting theory to debunk the efficacy of HIT. They TRAIN FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES!
Anyhow, just thought I'd add my 2 cents.
Modern Bodybuilding does define "Intensity" as it is in HIT terminology. Why do you think Weider, Poliquin, etc suggest using advanced techniques (supersets, decreased rest between sets, compound sets, etc) to increase "intensity." Does doing these increase the % of 1 RM you use? Certainly not. In fact, it must be LOWERED as a result, but the OUTCOME is definitely increased intensity.
Secondly, the goal of HIT and powerlifting are certainly different. While an increased in muscle size leads to strength gains, and increase in strength gains means increased muscle size, there is no 1:1 ratio. If so, you could look at any one person and estimate how much he or she can perform on a maximal lift such as the squat, etc, simply by SIZE. However, we ALL KNOW this is not the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be optimal rep ranges for SIZE vs STRENGTH gains. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they certainly aren't exactly the same.
As I stated earlier, I too, believe SOME of the principles of HIT are worked into Powerlifting, however, as Arioch as pointed out correctly, these are principles that seem to be true to MANY OTHER BODYBUILDING TECHNIQUES! HIT certainly is not powerlifting, and you cannot use a powerlifting theory to debunk the efficacy of HIT. They TRAIN FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES!
Anyhow, just thought I'd add my 2 cents.
transplant
New member
wow!
I can't believe the same people keep downing HD!
The whole point is........I will make this simple and quick........
The whole point in bodybuilding is to stimulate growth, RIGHT?
Some people have the ability to focus and do it in one and some people take several times to accomplish it. Thats it!
I am not going to get into recovery........I have made remarks about that subject and now you guys have burned me out on it!
So..........I will say it again H.I.T. is not for everyone.
To say: IT SUCKS CAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK FOR ME...............IDIOT!
I can't believe the same people keep downing HD!
The whole point is........I will make this simple and quick........
The whole point in bodybuilding is to stimulate growth, RIGHT?
Some people have the ability to focus and do it in one and some people take several times to accomplish it. Thats it!
I am not going to get into recovery........I have made remarks about that subject and now you guys have burned me out on it!
So..........I will say it again H.I.T. is not for everyone.
To say: IT SUCKS CAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK FOR ME...............IDIOT!
Arioch
New member
Ok, I have a problem with people in general who change definitions to suit themselves, whether they are HIT practicioners or Weider disciples or whatever.
HIT authors continually state how HIT is the best method to get stronger, while insulting other programs and athletes. This is what I have a problem with. I will stipulate that I personally do not feel that HIT is the best way to get stronger, but if it works for someone, fine. Please note that even in the Powerlifting FAQ written by yet another HIT author, the claim of HIT being the best way to prepare for powerlifting rears it's head.
Other than this, I really do not have a problem with it, as I said earlier.
HIT authors continually state how HIT is the best method to get stronger, while insulting other programs and athletes. This is what I have a problem with. I will stipulate that I personally do not feel that HIT is the best way to get stronger, but if it works for someone, fine. Please note that even in the Powerlifting FAQ written by yet another HIT author, the claim of HIT being the best way to prepare for powerlifting rears it's head.
Other than this, I really do not have a problem with it, as I said earlier.
