HIT - low volume? Not really

Training HIT
1

According to the modern zeitgeist, HIT routines are unproductive because they lack volume which is supposedly the driver of hypertrophy. I thought it amusing and ironic, then, when I stumbled across Arthur Jones original recommendations for training with conventional equipment (i.e barbells and dumbbells) in chapter 43 of the original (1970) nautilus bulletin.

"Using only a barbell, one light pair of dumbbells, a flat bench, a chinning bar, parallel bars, a squat rack and one
fairly-simple pulley device, an enormous amount of results can be produced in a fairly short time by the proper
practice of the following training program…

  1. 2 sets of 10 repetitions full squats :06 (minutes)
  2. 3 sets of 20 " one-legged calf raises :06
  3. 2 sets of 10 " barbell standing presses :06
  4. 2 sets of 10 " behind-neck chins :06
  5. 2 sets of 10 " bench presses :06
  6. 2 sets of 10 " regular-grip chins :06
  7. 2 sets of 10 " parallel dips :06
  8. 2 sets of 10 " barbell curls :08
  9. 2 sets of 12 " pulley triceps-curls :06
  10. 2 sets of 15 " wrist curls :02
  11. 1 set of 10 " regular-grip chins :03
  12. 1 set of 10 " parallel dips :03
  13. 2 sets of 15 " stiff-legged deadlifts :06
  14. 2 sets of 10 " dumbbell side raises :06

The above program – consisting of a total of 27 sets, to be performed in one hour and sixteen minutes, three times weekly – will build great overall strength and muscular mass in almost all cases; and in individual cases where the results produced are below expectations, it is probable that the program should be reduced, rather than increased."

Full body, 27 sets, 3 x weekly. Thats 81 total sets per week, and depending on how you count it, as many as 27 sets per muscle group per week for some bodyparts. This is actually MORE volume than people like Israetel advocate.

While I’m at it, Arthur’s writings are an interesting juxtaposition against modern bbing zeitgeist, where aspects we treat as esoteric or impossibly complex today, he treated as routine and normal and not worth any fanfare. For example, the myth persists today that recomposition is difficult and trainees are better off focusing on bulk/cut cycles (despite the fact that the scientific literature routinely observes it happening in both novice and advanced populations), and that as such it is the “holy grail”… meanwhile, Arthur Jones notes that if training is sufficient to provide the anabolic stimulus, and the person eats like a normal human being, loss of fatty tissue simultaneously accompanies a growth in muscle tissue.

Jones also beats the research by some 40+ years by pointing out that “bulking” will not increase the rate of muscle growth, and almost always only results in the addition of fatty tissue. As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t until very recent years that we got studies actually attempting to see if there was any advantage to a caloric surplus in muscle growth, and those studies caused much teeth gnashing when it was found, woops, a caloric surplus does not increase muscle mass in trainees, but it does increase fat mass, rapidly. And yet the myth persists!

1 Like