Cycle Progression Using a High Intensiveness Approach

[lou_smeets]

Hey CT,

I was wondering if you could elaborate on how to gradually progress through a 12 week cycle for hypertrophy using a HIT approach (fortitude training, DC, Dorian yates etc).

Several weeks ago you shared with us a couple of slides showing the main strategies you can use to progress for hypertrophy:

• Volume: adding sets or intensifciation methods on each block
• Load: double progression or hyp-strength hybrids using undulating or linear periodization
• RPE: keeping volume the same, but gradually increasing the RPE overtime
• Rep difficulty: fixed weight, but gradually increasing the difficulty of how a rep is performed

What would be your thought process when trying to progress using a HIT (5-7 sets per muscle taken to failure) approach going from one block to the next?

Thank you.

[Christian_Thibaudeau]

Let me start off by saying that it is my opinion that HIT doesn’t lend itself to long-term planning and is best suited (again, in my own opinion) as a short/moderate-term block within a training cycle.

If you look at the 4 progression models I mentioned, 1 of them can easily be applied to HIT (progression by rep difficulty), 2 can be applied to a limited level (progression by load and RPE) and 1 can’t really be applied.

Load progression is the traditional HIT progression model (at least in the original Arthur Jones model) however it is limited in effectiveness (or rather how long it can be sustained) because with a single work set it’s kinda hard to use the double progression model. Well, you can, but progression in load will still become quickly unsustainable (i.e. the more sets you do, the longer a double progression model is sustainable).

With either a single set double progression or a good old progressive overload/beat the logbook approach you will likely be able to progress for 4-6 weeks before you the wall. Less if you are an advanced lifter. And pretty much only on multi-joint exercises (you will likely progress for less time on single-joint movements).

The way to circumvent this is doing what Dante Trudel/the DC method calls for: when you can’t progress on an exercise anymore, you change that movement for something else.

The RPE progression can also be applied, but slightly differently. With super low-volume training yu absolutely must push your work sets hard. To the limit or very close to it (or even beyond). So a “pure” RPE/RIR progression doesn’t really work because, for example, sets with 3 (or 4) RIR shouldn’t be used with HIT training. Even sets with 2RIR aren’t going to work well.

So you can’t really go from 3RIR to 2RIR to 1RIR to failure. Rather you must use either one of these approaches:

Intensive RPE progression: Start at 1RIR, then go to failure, then beyond failure (e.g. rest/pause) then even deeper past failure (e.g. double rest/pause or rest/pause + drop set). That’s still limited though. I don’t see this working long-term without burning out.

Methods progression: Here you stay at 1RIR - to failure most of the time but in gradually more demanding methods. This is actually a form of rep difficulty progression. But this also offers a limited progression duration.

As you can see, the main issue is that with HIT you are kinda painting yourself in a corner by having to always push very hard, which can become draining.

Whereas something like volume duration can be a break for the nervous system by allowing you to keep progressing even from sets with 2-3RIR.

But even volume progression is limited.

The secret to long-term progression is thus to cycle through the progression approaches.

For example, 4-6 weeks of volume progression; 4-6 weeks of progressive overload; 4-6 weeks of rep difficulty; 2-3 weeks deload then start over (I don’t like to use RPE progression).

In that sense, it can also be applied to HIT, but I’d likely make the blocks a bit shorter.

Something like:

3-4 weeks rep difficulty; 3-4 weeks progressive overload; 3-4 weeks; 3-4 weeks intensive RPE progression; 3-4 weels progressive overload; 1-2 weeks deload and start over.

[Christian_Thibaudeau]

@lou_smeets

HIT (5-7 sets per muscle taken to failure

A true HIT program doesn’t have 5-7 sets to failure per muscle. Typically it is closer to 3, maybe 4. In the original HIT approach developed by Arthur Jones, you’d use a whole-body approach with 8-12 exercises for 1 set to failure each. Which typically would give each muscle 2 maybe 3 work sets to failure.

People will point out Yates approach. But while Yates used a low volume of training, the plan he used when he won his 6 Olympias was not really HIT (although his original training when coming up, was).

His “Olympia program” (which you can see in Blood and Guts) is a typical bodybuilding program but with 1-2 work sets per exercise (and sufficient warm-up sets) rather than the traditional 3-4. But everything else is closer to traditional bodybuilding than true HIT.

Look at DC training, which, IMHO is the closest thing to “pure HIT” being used by top bodybuilders; it uses 1 exercise per muscle (can be 2 for "muscle groups that are comprised of several muscles like “back”) for 1 work set.

5-7 sets per muscle is low-volume. But not HIT in the traditional sense.

It’s really just semantics, but let’s call a cat a cat!

[lou_smeets]

Let’s call a cat a cat indeed! I had no idea of the traditional sense of HIT (maybe I should read more books hah). In my head I always associated HIT with very low volume, super high intensiveness training, not necessarily sticking to only 1 set per muscle group.

I actually did Dorian Yates ‘Blood and Guts’ program 6 years ago and I drew my conclusion that this type of training was what one would call HIT training.

The 5-7 sets to failure per muscle group was my way of referring to your ‘recommendations for natural lifters’ webinar on youtube where you mention that using a low volume, high intensiveness approach can be effective for natural lifters, besides using a moderate or higher volume approach.

Since Yates’s program was like 2-4 sets per muscle (perhaps not on the smaller muscle groups but certainly the bigger ones like back and legs) taken to failure within a session, I figured the low volume approach was the same as HIT training.

[lou_smeets]

Very comprehensive and insightful, thank you CT for sharing your opinion about this particular subject.

So it’s not always about slightly adding more volume or varying between blocks of volume and intensity to keep making progress.

To me, the volume progression sounds like the easiest one to program. Cycling through progression models from phase to phase is an entirely different ball game and requires a smarter approach to program design. I like it though.

[aldebaran]

Personally alternating between “HIT” and high volumes phases each during 6-12 weeks has been very efficient.

On volume phases I use progression models. On HIT I’ve found it very hard… I usualy don’t care much about the weight, just aiming to finish laying on the floor. But I’ll definitely try these models next time, thanks CT!

[Christian_Thibaudeau]

@lou_smeets

volume progression sounds like the easiest one to program

it absolutely is