All Coaches:HIT Come Back?

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
1)low frequency
2)low volume(down to 1set only)
3)8-12rep range
4)training to failure
5)60%carb diet(that means low protein)
most confuse topic is:
6)lift slowly,sometime use superslow reps.

Can any of you give me some SCIENTIFIC support to oppose these points?
[/quote]

  1. This will work (a little) if you rip a group of muscles to hell in a single workout. A LOT of empirical evidence points to more frequent, less intense sessions working better for everything.

  2. This works well if the load is huge.

  3. This is an okay set and rep range to use, but really won’t get the nervous system to adapt for really heavy weights. If you’re training for physique purposes, a predominance of training in this rep range works well, though you’d need to venture into maximal strength and giant sets as well.

  4. Lots of research on overtraining, basic idea is you burn out too fast without proper deloading phases. Training to failure too frequently places a tremendous strain on recovery capabilities.

  5. What 60% carb diet means low protein? Does it also use 35% fat or something?

  6. Not any evidence for this working for anyone except pure beginners. There’s been some research done using superslow training that shows benefit, but they used sedentary individuals. I’ve never seen someone who’s trained for more than a month benefit.

-Dan

22

It’s actually fun to read about HIT because it reveals so much about human behavior, especially regarding group-think mentality that borders on cult-like behavior. Go to drdarden.com and read some of Darden’s articles. Nearly every one mentions something about Arthur Jones. This is supposed to be an exercise protocol - why this obsession with one man?

I mean, I’ve read articles on the Westside method that’ll mention Louie Simmons, but they don’t raise him to guru status like the HIT Jedi do with Jones. And even though Simmons may have developed the WSB template, he did it based on his study of the Soviet/Russian training methods. He then put those methods into practice. What worked he kept; what didn’t got tossed.

I’m convinced that Jones made this stuff up as he went along. In his world, he was always right; those who disagreed were idiots. No exceptions. Problem is, some of his ideas were just plain wrong. Here is a quote taken from his Nautilus Bulletin #1, Chapter 39"

“Point #2 – By training for endurance, increases in strength are produce in direct proportion to increases in endurance – and vice versa.”

Any T-Nation reader knows that this is half true. Training for strength will lead to increases in endurance - that is true to a point. But we all know that doing high reps will not increase our 1RM. But this is the Gospel According to Arthur.

Funny, one of reviews of Darden’s new HIT book on Amazon actually calls Jones “sociopathic.” That’s not too far from the truth. The man had real problems dealing with people. He also believed that his IQ, which supposedly “could not be measured,” was equal to that of Albert Einstein. Hmmm, let’s look at the facts. Jones came from a family many of whose members went into medicine. Jones never went to college. Sounds more like he was the family idiot rather than the misunderstood genius.

23

why non of my favourite coach drop their opinion? CW, CT…etc…where are you guys??

24

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
OK here’s a shot at putting them all together.

Let’s take the lats:

  1. Chins: Weight chin-add weight until you cannot complete a rep. Attempt to raise yourself as hard as possible-or hold yourself-for 5-6 seconds. Repeat.

  2. 5 or 6 x 3 at 80% max chin or pulldown. About 60-90 seconds rest between sets.

  3. 2 sets at 60-65% done for 12 slow and controlled reps. Do the first set-no more than 12 reps. Rest 45 seconds only and attempt to repeat. That’s all.

Next day, or 4+ hours later: 1 set of 50-100 light pulldowns.[/quote]

LOL. Nobody even gave you props for this workout. If CT or CW had of written this routine EVERYBODY on this site would have dropped to their knees and started kissing ass. “Best routine ever!” “I’ve been waiting for this all my life.” etc etc.

Sorry for the rant, but your last two posts were probably the best most concise posts summing up everything a person needs to know about training in a few short paragraphs. Those two posts should be a must read before people are even allowed to view the rest of this site!

The routine you just posted IMO is better than CT’s HSS-100.

Great job!!

25

Does anyobody know of a detailed, free internet site based on HIT? I understand the basic premises, but would like to look into it further. Everything I’ve found so far is either HIT routines penned up by amatuers, or people trying to sell their HIT books.

26

You still have to consider that improving overall strength will produce more arm hypertrophy alone than direct arm work will ever do

27

I have had experience training HIT style and found it to be not so much about being a means to get ripped and what not, that just seem to be a side effect dictated by diet (though I was never near ripped while doing this program I had maintained a bw of 260lbs at 16% which ain’t half bad considering how much i was eating). I had been doing a workout once a week followed by tire flipping and chain dragging one day later in the week. HIT seems to be much more suited as a conditioning work out and for those who are looking to increase their work capacity. you rarely see HIT’ers focusing on one body part for specialization - they usually just attack the entire body.

found this on a random site for those that are looking for an example:

"KEN LEISTNER WORKOUT
In all fairness, one should preface this workout by saying that there is no ‘Ken Leistner’ workout. Dr. Ken, like all of us who have trained a number of people, does not use the same routine for everyone. One routine that many people have seen and used of his is almost exactly like the the above routine for underweight individuals, but with a little commentary. The full article about sensible training is somewhere on Cyberpump!and if you use their search engine and look for “ken leistner sensible training” you should not have any problem finding it. The exercises Dr. Ken lists for his workout are:
1) Full squats, 15 to 20 reps
2) Pullovers, 10 reps
3) Standing Press, 10 reps
4) Chins, 10 reps
5) Weighted Dips, 12 reps
6) Barbell Curls, 10 reps
7) Shrugs, 15 reps
8) Stiff-Legged Deadlifts, 15 reps

Dr. Ken says of this workout “How many sets of each exercise? One. Two. Certainly never more than three, and if you are working properly, one set of most of these exercises should be more than enough for anyone.” He also states that above all progession is the key to success in lifting, and that the bottom line is that one should strive to add either weight or reps every few workouts. Although many trainees will feel that simple progression can surely not be the only factor in increasing strength, size, or speed, Dr. Ken says, “If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 pounds for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 pounds for 15 reps, curling 200 pounds for 10 reps, pressing 200 pounds for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 pounds around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds around your waist, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong?” As Dr. Ken answers his own question, “obviously”. "

28

[quote]beAman13 wrote:
Dr. Ken says, “If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 pounds for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 pounds for 15 reps, curling 200 pounds for 10 reps, pressing 200 pounds for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 pounds around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds around your waist, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong?” As Dr. Ken answers his own question, “obviously”. "
[/quote]

HIT for conditioning? i’ll say yes.
but is it the ONLY way to build size & strength? i’ll say NO.

even though i don’t know who this Dr.Ken is, if he say things like that, i’ll say he forgot one thing that limits our size&strength: GNENTICS!!!

not everyone can do those lifts with such heavy weight, but i guess most of the people come to T-Nation is to find ways to IMPROVE from where they’re now.

setting those Numbers for EVERYONE to achieve is fxxking stupid to me.

29

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
beAman13 wrote:
Dr. Ken says, “If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 pounds for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 pounds for 15 reps, curling 200 pounds for 10 reps, pressing 200 pounds for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 pounds around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds around your waist, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong?” As Dr. Ken answers his own question, “obviously”. "

HIT for conditioning? i’ll say yes.
but is it the ONLY way to build size & strength? i’ll say NO.

even though i don’t know who this Dr.Ken is, if he say things like that, i’ll say he forgot one thing that limits our size&strength: GNENTICS!!!

not everyone can do those lifts with such heavy weight, but i guess most of the people come to T-Nation is to find ways to IMPROVE from where they’re now.

setting those Numbers for EVERYONE to achieve is fxxking stupid to me.

[/quote]

Wong - you should know better than to start talking about genetics. I would bet that if most people on here saw you when you weighed just over 100 lbs. they all would have said that you do not have the genetics to have 17-inch arms. They would have been wrong. In fact, I think in the last Darden interview someone said that when they started lifting they had crappy “genetics.” But they stuck to training hard and after a few years their “genetics” miraculously got better. Genetics is an excuse people use who do not want to train hard or train consistently, or learn about periodization and other time-tested training methods. I would say that 95% of the population, with hard and smart training, has the capability to achieve the numbers that Leistner throws out.

30

Re-read my post. He never said those numbers were meant for everyone. Though in my opinion the poundages stated are good goals for most serious strength trainers. Playing the bad genetics card is really getting old I must admit. The human body is an incredible machine, if it is lacking, the only person to blame is it’s owner (of course this is not applying to those afflicted with handicaps). I forget who said this but I read it recently in a newsletter from John Wood, it states: “every man should be strong enough to save his own life”. Dr. Leistner is very well known in the iron game, he employs HIT style training with his athletes to a great degree of success - infact Leistner himself squatted 405 for 18 reps (at a bodyweight of 165lbs I believe). Someone can look this up for the exact numbers.
HIT does work (especially when proper REST and RECOVERY is made a priority) but OBVIOUSLY by now there are hundreds of other systems that work as well (Dan Johns OLAD, is probly one of the best programs I have ever used in my life).

There are different vessels for different journeys my man.

31

When i raise the word GENETICS, what i’m talking is someone have greater genetics for gaining size, but not strength, like me. i can gain size(even i’m struggle to be 215lbs),but i can’t gain strength as fast as size.
i’ve trained with a powerlifter for 1year, but i don’t have much strength gain…may be just my joints can’t accept those heavy weight.

setting numbers as Goals is good.

this threat i make, focuse on one thing: HIT is NOT the ONLY WAY to gain size & strength!!!

32

If you single-mind, boring as hell HITers come to my post, then please involve a before/after photo to show us the results.

myself, in the past 9-10years, rarely useHIT, but use high-volume, lots of variety, non-failure, high-frequency training, and i’ve gain more than 100lbs without drugs!!! and because i’m not doing the same thing over and over for 9year, i’ve FUN, like CS’s “21-day itch” said, we need to have FUN. otherwise i’ll quit at the very first year.
[/quote]

im not going to advocate one type of training over another, because i havent figured it out yet either, so why pretend. but the name calling is ignorant. and putting your thoughts on a free internet forum doesnt mean you own shit, so quit whining about someone coming to YOUR post.

and 110lbs–>215lbs, good job, were all happy for you, but i think you should be attributing much of that size gain to the workout where you concentrated on lifting the fork to your mouth. 110lbs is a 13yr old girl.

33

Omg, my gym doesn’t have any Nautilus double cam, variable resistance, uber shiny equipment.

Can I substitute with squats, deadlifts, and dips?

I’m so depressed now.

34

[quote]dez6485 wrote:
im not going to advocate one type of training over another, because i havent figured it out yet either, so why pretend. but the name calling is ignorant. and putting your thoughts on a free internet forum doesnt mean you own shit, so quit whining about someone coming to YOUR post.

and 110lbs–>215lbs, good job, were all happy for you, but i think you should be attributing much of that size gain to the workout where you concentrated on lifting the fork to your mouth. 110lbs is a 13yr old girl.[/quote]

If you’re not talking about HIT-ONLY, then that’s good.

and yes, 110lbs for a 13yr old girl, that’s why i pick up bodybuilding.
at that time i’m 17years old. and remember, i’m not an American, i’m chinese, a LOT of chinese is about 110-140lbs. not everyone born very big.

35

i dont know if you were being serious obofill but obviously the answer is yes, of course. while i was training HIT style the only time I would ever use machines or a rack for that matter was when spotters were not present to help me crank out the reps that would take me just past failure and into the heavy negative category.

Infact right now I have a three day program and it looks something like this. One day mirrors the “Leistner workout” I posted, the other being an implement day (kegs, truck push, hill sprints with sled…etc) and the 3rd day is simply:
deadlift 5x5
pull up 8x3
dip 8x3
barbell curls 2x12
I add some direct oblique work and medicine ball tosses for good measure and do a couple of 30 minute sessions a week on the elipitical.

I am currently sitting at 245 around 18% bf because i am just coming back from a long break but hopefully those numbers will change by July when I turn 26.

anyway point is…stop wasting time by specualting about what may or may not be the best program…shut up and lift!

36

[quote]beAman13 wrote:
while i was training HIT style the only time I would ever use machines or a rack for that matter was when spotters were not present to help me crank out the reps that would take me just past failure and into the heavy negative category.

Infact right now I have a three day program and it looks something like this. One day mirrors the “Leistner workout” I posted, the other being an implement day (kegs, truck push, hill sprints with sled…etc) and the 3rd day is simply:
deadlift 5x5
pull up 8x3
dip 8x3
barbell curls 2x12
I add some direct oblique work and medicine ball tosses for good measure and do a couple of 30 minute sessions a week on the elipitical.

I am currently sitting at 245 around 18% bf because i am just coming back from a long break but hopefully those numbers will change by July when I turn 26.

anyway point is…stop wasting time by specualting about what may or may not be the best program…shut up and lift![/quote]

HIT style?? do you know Dr. Darden’s HIT style is one set?? not 8x3, or 5x5.just one set.

anyway, i think i’ll stop here. because non of my favourite coach leave their opinion on this topic. so i’ll focus on my CRAZY-ARM Challenge.

37

we obviously have a bit of a language barrier here…i never said i am still training in an HIT specific routine. No 8x3, 5x5 and the like are not HIT patterns.

38

[quote]beAman13 wrote:
we obviously have a bit of a language barrier here…i never said i am still training in an HIT specific routine. No 8x3, 5x5 and the like are not HIT patterns.[/quote]

Almost seems like a HIT ghetto would be appropriate.

http://www.asep.org/jeponline/issue/Doc/Dec2004/Smith.pdf

is the only paper I’ve seen that comes close to research or science on HIT.

I’m not truly training that way, so I can’t comment more fully, though I did run a search here out of curiosity to see if HIT was alive where the real experience seems to be.

Gather not.

40

Overall I’m not against the HIT methodology. In fact I believe that using it as part of a pariodized scheme is the way to go. I personally like to alternate phases og higher volume, heavy loading and HIT-type training (which I call intensive instead of high intensity training since intensiy actually refers to the amount of weight lifted).

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
1)low frequency
[/quote]

HIT is NOT low frequency training. Yes, you do not have a lot of training sessons in a week (3 most of the time), but since most of these sessions are whole-body sessions each muscle is actually trained 2-3 times a week. So while it’s true that you are training infrequentely, the frequency of training each body part is actually higher than most training systems.

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
2)low volume(down to 1set only)
[/quote]

As a change of pace from higher volume training, I like it. However you better make sure that this one set leaves you in a state where further loaded muscle work is temporarily impossible. IMHO when doing only one set, “regular” muscle failure isn’t enough. You should go beyond failure by using rest-pause, drop-set, isometric contraction or negative reps.

If you do not give it all you’ve got in that one set, you will not get results. The thing I like about doing only 1 set per exercise is that it will give you that “don’t hold anything back” mentality… do or die intensity. Which is an attitude that will enhance every phase of your training.

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
3)8-12rep range
[/quote]

This is the maximum/total hypertrophy zone so in that regard it will be effective at stimulating muscle growth. Probably not ideal to build limit strength, but for size, it’s fine.

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
4)training to failure
[/quote]

Let me first say that “true” muscle failure is impossible to reach voluntarily. True muscle failure means that for a brief period of time, the muscle can’t even contract (in other words you wouldn’t even be able to flex your upper arm against nothing one you reach true muscle failure).

Under normal circumstances, this cannot occur. You would basically have to go through

  1. Complete concentric failure with the original load
  2. Complete isometric failure with the original load
  3. Complete eccentric failure with the original load
  4. Complete concentric failure with a lightened load (50% of the initial load for example)
  5. Complete isometric failure with a lightened load (50% of the initial load for example)
  6. Complete eccentric failure with a lightened load (50% of the initial load for example)
  7. Continue the same process until you are down to complete concentric, isometric and eccentric failure with no weight

This would represent true muscle failure.

Regular muscle failure (during a regular set) is most likely due to an accumulation of metabolites (H+ and lactate) which decrease the capacity to recruit the motor units and their capacity to contract, or to energetic depletion (ATP-CP and glycogen). Rarely will it be because you have created too much inroad/muscle damage.

That having been said, when you are using only 1 set per exercise it is my belief that for optimal gains you must go to failure and beyond. If you are using volume, failure isn’t as important since you will stimulate growth via the cumulative fatigue effect.

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
5)60%carb diet(that means low protein)
most confuse topic is:
[/quote]

I don’t agree with that, at least not for most of the lifting population. A lot of peoples don’t tolerate carbs too well. I will say that you need carbs to grow optimally, especially post-workout. But you don’t have to go up to 60%.

In my mass gaining phases I’m at a ratio of 40% protein, 40% carbs and 20% fat, and even that gives me a lot of carbs.

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
6)lift slowly,sometime use superslow reps.
[/quote]

I will say that LOWERING the weight slowly is very effective. LIFTING slowly all the time isn’t optimal since muscle recruitment is force dependant. Since Force = mass x acceleration, lifting slowly will decrease force production because there is little acceleration and even the mass will be lower.

However from time to time it can be used: it can stimulate hypertrophy via an increase in time under tension and lactate, which will favor hypertrophy the establishment of an anabolic milieu (increase in hGH and IGF-1).