Korfist, irondoc; do you guys really think that hit does not work? Korfist, you use the fact that you are a coach as an "appeal to authority " arugument, but does that prove anything? Are you better than, or is your team better than, every other? As far as benching goes, who really gives a shit? I mean 20 minutes with a helpful power lifter will put about 50 pounds on most bench pressess. Technique is worth so much for a bench test, it makes you wonder what real value it has for the NFL. The NFL scouts in general are very skeptical of “combine wonders” guys who train for the Vertical Jump, the bench, the shuttle and the 40 yard dash (Mike Mamula anyone?). Football is not sprints and benches and high jumps. Take a look at all the top performers in the combine and see how they do in the NFL. There is almost no corrolation between combine “winners” and good NFL players. So let’s keep the argument grounded, away from personal experience and closer to science. If HIT does not work at all then why? Is there some amount of volume needed, if so how much? Is an amount of intensity too much (an amount less that a set to failure)? If so how hard? How hard should you train? Is there some benifit to more frequent training? If so how often. Even saying that you gotta train 5 days a week for 2 hours a day give us more to work with than “HIT does not work”.
I’m not a big fan of HIT methods and very rarely (actually not in the past 3 years) use it. I have a few major concerns with HIT training…
GENERAL HEALTH: I've learned a simple truth when it comes to exercise. The more you do, the better your general conditioning gets. I had a hard time accepting this for a while, but it really can't be denied. I'm not referring specifically to weight training, but for general health, a person that exercises for 10 hours a week will end up in much better shape from a health standpoint than a person who exercises for 4 hours. A HITer usually trains with such little volume and frequency that he completely misses out on the health benefits of weight training.
LAZINESS: Here’s a simple one. Guys that only train a few exercises for one set each are not “mentally” conditioned. If you take a guy who’s training only 3 times per week for 7 or 8 sets per workout and put him on one of my programs (i only use this as an example because it happened), he won’t be up for the challenge mentally because he’s so used to being able to be lazy. He’ll be used to going to the gym and getting out in less than 30 minutes. To put it bluntly, he’ll have been “sissified” by the HIT training. And believe it or not, if he’s an athlete this attitude will manifest itself on the court or field.
LACK OF OF COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT: HIT guys also have a hard time realizing that as a fully rotational entity, the human body pushes, pulls, and jumps from all angles and in all directions. But their lack of volume makes it impossible for them to train from a wide variety of angles and positions. This doesn't apply to all HITers, but if they train solely with machines as many do, they further this problem by way of developing the same neural pathways over and over. Paul Chek refers to this as pattern overload.
LACK OF STIMULUS TO HIGH THRESHOLD MOTOR UNITS: This I’m sure everyone has heard before. Rep ranges and lifting speed must be varied to cover the entire motor unit pool. Nuff said…
LACK OF CORE STABILITY: HITers as a rule have almost no functional core stability. That is, they cannot stabilize their lower back and spine under load. Try taking a HITer and have him do jumping box squats, clean and presses, or bent presses. Actually I take that back because, if you do try this, he’ll likely break his spine in half or rupture a disc because he isn’t used to having to keep his spine and pelvis neutral under load. The core demands a high volume of work to respond and become functional.
LACK OF ADAPTATION TO VOLUME: This applies mostly to athletes, but it applies to bodybuilders indirectly. For athletes however, it’s an absolute necessity. Imagine how much better off a football lineman will be if his body is conditioned to doing 30-32 sets for his posterior chain (hips and glutes) per week than if he only did 3 or 4. In a game situation, he is forced to explode off the line over and over again, for the entire duration of the game. If his posterior chain has been trained only with low volume, his stamina will greatly suffer to say the least. This is an adaptation that HITers miss out on.
AND FINALLY.... As Irondoc, Coach Davies, and Korfist have said, when it comes to getting results in the real world, I've observed HIT to be much less effective. And it's hard to argue with success and failure.
OK OK OK…BUILD A BRIDGE AND GET OVER IT. We expieriment-we find what works for US. Maybe HIT, Westside, GVT, or maybe your a genetic freak (like me) and anything will work as long as it is constantly changing. Yall quick draggin dead horses up in hear, because i am getting tired of kicking its ass.
Peace - Love - Protein Shakes, Always Alpha Male
does anyone know that HIT trained division 1 teams have won at an inordinant rate against non HIT teams, or that HIT trained NFL teams are over .500 against nonHIT trained teams. I’ll get into louie tommorow because he often makes NO sence. to coach again I ask for ANY science behind your beliefs, and you seem like a nice guy and I probably agree w/you more than not (except on this) but you are training people and don’t you think you should have some SCIENCE behind what you say? If volume is BETTER than why doesn’t the T-man staff chime in w/science? where’s king, where are those who recomend all these volume training methods I read of? think about why no one responds w/SCIENCE. again if this was about your diet you would want science behind it. to whats his name, YOU slammed me on the other post, YOU slammed HIT, if you want ANY example of science look at ALL the studies done, YOU SAID YOU COULD SITE “a study or two” to support your view, where are they? surely you can find ONE. thats ALL I’m asking for ONE, only ONE, just ONE lousy study, come on if you are sooooooo right I am sure you can find ONE, do a search, call friends,call louie and see if he knows of ONE, cause thats ALL I’m asking for ONE LOUSY STUDY . but you will not find ANY! to all peace. oh yea, you challenged me on my name, whats yours? oh, I’m sure you don’t want those that know you to know that there is NO science behind what you believe. again just ONE study, thats it only ONE. PLEASE GIVE ME ONE LOUSY STUDY!!! to all again, peace
its pretty obvious that you only know what others tell you. again name ONE study!
Arnold beat Mentzer.
Hetyeh, I don’t review studies. Do you? How’s about you name ONE specific study, complete with references, that support your claims? I don’t think anybody that posts on this forum actively goes through research studies. But maybe we’re wrong and everything you believe you’ve validated through your own research. But I doubt it.
And it is completely laughable that you are now claiming to be more intelligent than Louie Simmons. I’ve heard plenty of scientific arguments on this thread Hetyeh. And I love the fact that you continue to gloss over the ludicrous claims that you made, and that everyone knows is utter bullshit. As for the name, I don’t want to give you my real name Hetyeh. There’s no reason for it, and I’m not trying to be Mr. Tough and challenge people to fights or “meetings.” Get over it.
I AGREE…ARNOLD DID BEAT MENTZER!
I thought A.C. was a decent WR for a few years, but by the time I was able to watch football his career was over, so what do I know. I agree speed kills, that is why people like Charles Woodson, David Terrel, Desmond Howard (too short to be an NFL receiver but a damn good returner) and Lavar Arrington are or will be successful in the NFL (can you tell I am orginally from Michigan!! lol). Resonable people can agree to disagree, there is much more to life than weight training and football. Good Luck on your season, coach!!
This thread is so silly. Everyone wants to be so right that you guys cant even address the relevent issues and arguments that eachother present.
Like for example...you keep debating whether or not HIT works but I dont think many of you are using the same definition of HIT!?! How can you conduct an argument when youre not even talking about the same thing.
In addition, you havent even defined the goal. Some are arguing strength, some performance, some power, some speed, etc. Well certainly NO program can hit them all?!?
This is my first and last post on this issue because it’s an exercise in futility so here goes.
As far as myself...Im mostly neutral and wont make strong claims either way because I believe that this issue is still unresolved. However my opinion is as follows...
HIT can and does work for short term training protocols when strength gains are the goal. In addition, I believe muscular hypertrophy can be realized from HIT as well during short phases of its use. In fact, I used a modified HIT program when I trained for the Mr USA in 95. But I didnt build my physique with it. I just used it to cut down on my volume while dieting down (12 weeks) so that I would preserve more muscle mass. Finally, for f-ball players, I think HIT, when used DURING a season is more effective due to the fact that athletes have a very limited recovery during this time and couldnt handle larger volumes.
BUT WAIT! I believe that during pre-season training, football teams need more volume and HIT will not satisfy pre-season/off season conditioning needs. In addition, I personally have made great gains on volume training programs and must admit that my physique is much more balanced on this type of program than it was with HIT (even though I did win the Jr USA while using it).
Remember, there is a time and a place for all training methods. When well rested and full of good nutrition, you can and should do more volume for physique balance and conditioning. In addition, this type of volume with adequate recovery may be better for strength and power gains.
However when in a situation where rest and nutrition are minimal and auxiliary training volumes are high (in season training, pre contest training), HIT may be a good plan.
People, you dont honestly think that the body will handle different training methods the same during all physiological states?
What a useless arguement this thread has turned out to be. Has anyone LEARNED anything or are we all here to defend our viewpoints to the end?
Oh yeah, and hetyey, dont call us t-mag staffers out! You dont want to battle science with us. I dont know what your scientific training is but I feel safe in guessing that yours is grossly inferior to ours. You want studies…here are two…one “in favor” of your position and one “opposed”. Now, keep in mind, your post about there being 50 studies with thousands of subjects is a blatant, ridiculous lie.
These are the only 2 I found on medline! If there are more, Id love to see your references! But nevertheless, as with these 2 studies, I doubt any study truly compares real HIT training as it is supposed to be performed with volume training as it is supposed to be performed. It would be too hard to equate the work and only when work is equated can true comparisons be made!
Am J Sports Med 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):626-33 Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players.
Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, Triplett-McBride T, Koziris LP, Bauer JA, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ.
The Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana 47306, USA.
Few data exist on the long-term adaptations to heavy resistance training in women. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of volume of resistance exercise on the development of physical performance abilities in competitive, collegiate women tennis players. Twenty-four tennis players were matched for tennis ability and randomly placed into one of three groups: a no resistance exercise control group, a periodized multiple-set resistance training group, or a single-set resistance training group. No significant changes in body mass were observed in any of the groups throughout the entire training period. However, significant increases in fat-free mass and decreases in percent body fat were observed in the periodized training group after 4, 6, and 9 months of training. A significant increase in power output was observed after 9 months of training in the periodized training group only. One-repetition maximum strength for the bench press, free-weight shoulder press, and leg press increased significantly after 4, 6, and 9 months of training in the periodized training group, whereas the single-set circuit group increased only after 4 months of training. Significant increases in serve velocity were observed after 4 and 9 months of training in the periodized training group, whereas no significant changes were observed in the single-set circuit group. These data demonstrate that sport-specific resistance training using a periodized multiple-set training method is superior to low-volume single-set resistance exercise protocols in the development of physical abilities in competitive, collegiate women tennis players.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Jan;32(1):235-42
Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters.
Hass CJ, Garzarella L, de Hoyos D, Pollock ML.
Center for Exercise Science, Department of Exercise and Sports Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of increasing training volume from one set to three sets on muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition in adult recreational weight lifters. METHODS: Forty-two adults (age 39.7 +/- 6.2 yr; 6.2 +/- 4.6 yr weight training experience) who had been performing one set using a nine-exercise resistance training circuit (RTC) for a minimum of 1 yr participated in this study. Subjects continued to perform one set (EX-1; N = 21) or performed three sets (EX-3; N = 21) of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure 3 d x wk(-1) for 13 wk using RTC. One repetition maximums (1-RM) were measured for leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC), chest press (CP), overhead press (OP), and biceps curl (BC). Muscular endurance was evaluated for the CP and LE as the number of repetitions to failure using 75% of pretraining 1-RM. Body composition was estimated using the sum of seven skinfold measures. RESULTS: Both groups significantly improved muscular endurance and 1 RM strength (EX-1 by: 13.6% LE; 9.2% LC; 11.9% CP; 8.7% OP; 8.3% BC; and EX-3 by: 12.8% LE; 12.0% LC; 13.5% CP; 12.4% OP; 10.3% BC) (P < 0.05). Both groups significantly improved lean body mass (P < 0.05). No significant differences between groups were found for any of the test variables (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition as a result of the 13 wk of training. The results show that one-set programs are still effective even after a year of training and that increasing training volume over 13 wk does not lead to significantly greater improvements in fitness for adult recreational weight lifters.
Doug Santillo, I have trained only with HIT and spasmodically at best (I am real busy), and my spine is just fine. If it is true that a certain amount of volume is required for CORE fittness, then how much? And why is that amount of volume necessary. Once again, my argument is that (at a very high level) a big muscle is required for very short intense bouts of exercise, while no particular size of muscle is required for a large amount of exercise.
JB makes some great points.
I think the problem here is that people are "does it work?" and not asking "does it work all the time?" Of course it's going to work! Almost any training protocol has its time and place, even HIT. I don't think anyone here doubts that HIT will work under certain conditions for achieving certain goals. My problem with HIT is no so much the program itself (and I use the term "program" loosely, because even its proponents can't seem to agree on what HIT is). My problem is with its strongest proponents who believe that HIT is the ONLY training protocol that should be used, all the time, for everyone, for every goal (which, by the way, goes directly against the SAID principle - Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands). This just flies in the face of common sense and anecdotal evidence... Different training protocols have worked for different people for different goals, and while a training protocol may work well for one person, it doesn't for someone else. HIT may be a great training protocol for some people, but it's a lousy one for others - this is why some people say "I tried it and it's great", and others say "I tried it and it sucks"... It's completely dependent not only on your goals but also on your individual characteristics. Anyway... enough ranting, I hear food calling me.
HITer Scott
Thank you for the debate and good luck in your training and softball.
Great question. My point was not that all HIT trainees will experience back problems, but that they are more prone to them. You may not ever experience the results of a weak abdominal wall, but that doesn’t mean you’re not more likely to or that it’s not important. These problems by the way can manifest themselves in many different ways. Knee tendinitis and arthritis, lower back pain, muscle pulls, and even shoulder problems can often be attributed to weak or imbalanced abdominals. The core is very complex, and in order for the spine to be oriented properly, all facets of abdominal development must be in balance. How much volume is required? That’s debatable, but I can make a strong argument for what is absolutely necessary. I focus on six areas of abdominal development: upper and lower abdominals, suction (vmo - the most important of all), rotational, lateral, and stabilization under load. If you’re abdominal training consists of only a couple sets, you can’t possibly be hitting all 5 independent areas of development and are therefore neglecting some and causing imbalances. The sixth by the way, stabilization under load, is trained simply with a focus on exercises that require stabilization of the pelvis such as deadlifts, cleans, snatches, and free squats. HITers don’t generally focus much time into these lifts (some do), so this facet of abdominal development may be neglected as well.
I'm not sure I understand the argument you presented in that last post about a big muscle being required for short bouts, no size necessary for large amounts etc... It sounded interesting, so can you explain it a little more?
Sorry, I was typing too fast and made a mistake. I meant TVA (transverse abdominus), not VMO, trained in isolation primarily in vacuum/suction exercises and trained integrated in exercises requiring pelvis stabilization.
Every bodybuilder uses multiple sets. Thats enough proof for me.
H.I.T. is bogus. I mean where are the real athletes that use it. Before anyone says Casey Viator, Mike Mentzer, or Dorian Yates, hear this. It is well documented, including in a recent Ironamn that Casey did more than one set to failure. Mentzer made one good run at Arnold, took second, the belly-ached about it forever. Dorian? He takes three to four “warm-up” sets. Hell, that’s like calling Coach Davies GPP a “warm-up.” With the poundages he used, he was working out, end of story. Keeping the faith, Solomon.
This is OT, because I really don’t want to beat a HIT/Anit-HIT dead horse. I just wanted to comment on “Propaghandi”'s name. I like that group too. Have you heard their newest album yet?
Here’s what I have learned from this thread: JMB IS THE MAN.