my two cents: what works for you? And, if you did go from less than an hour per week to several hours, even if it gave you 5 to 10 lbs of muscle. Would it be worth it? Most of Brad’s meta analyses show far less advantage than that and he’s been critiqued as including very poorly conducted studies
Even among not-HIT, traditional (barbell) advocates, there is some skepticism about Schoenfeld’s conclusions about the value of super high volumes (30 to 45 sets per muscle group per week). About the only audience that is receptive to that conclusion is hard core bodybuilders who are happy to spend 2 hours a day, 6 days a week in the gym. Nobody else really cares, because even if he is correct, how many normal people want to live that way?
Also ask yourself this: Does it really matter if low volume HIT is “optimal”, as long as you are happy with the return you get for the time you invest? If your answer is “No”, then no reason to get spun up over this particular bone of contention.
I think the research is mixed at best. One argument against the bro science method is Dorian Yates, as he seems to be one of the few high profile figures who appeared to have stuck with HIT from virtually the start of his career until the end.
I think the Yates example should guide you. Dorian did that type of ‘blood and guts’ training because it suited his ‘blood and guts’ mindset. If short intense bouts, such as HIT, suits you then you should follow it. If your are a ‘6 day in the gym’ dude who loves the pump then HIT is probably a turn off.
Actually, Dr Schoenfeld stated in the podcast that there is no advantage doing more than 10 sets per bodypart (probably less). Enhanced bodybuilders are another group that hasn’t been studied at all, appearantly (can tolerate more sets).
My take on HIT is on with Mentzer’s statement: How little stimulus is needed/necessary?
The problem with me lies in the contradictions. HIT would say that HVT methods are detrimental to growth due to overtraining. HIT supporters suggest that elite bodybuilders could build muscle with any type of exercise routine because of genetics. However, they say that the average person would not prosper with HVT. So, people who use HIT reach a plateau with growth and think to themselves “This is as good as it gets…I am limited by my genetic make up.” HVT is saying this is not true…They say, “You are not doing enough volume to reach your potential”…They bring up the need to change rep ranges (which makes sense from a common sense perspective) in order to avoid adaptation whereas HIT literature does not. I agree that most people do not want to work out 4 hours a day six days a week…but I think people do not utilize HIT techniques because of the time element, but they do it because they believe it is the most effective way to build muscle. They believe you are providing the right amount of stimulus to promote growth and not overtraining. The time element is just a plus. I would train more often than three times a week, and do split routines if I thought it was better away to build muscle. A true HIT supporter believes HVT is detrimental to growth. A true HVT believer would suggest HIT is not enough training to reach potential. I cannot subscribe that both methods are equally effective. One has to be true and the other false.
1 Like
If I am going to invest any of my time, then I want to do what is the most effective. The lack of consistency in research findings (I would think) should create some concern for everyone. Is there any large identical twin studies out there regarding training methods?
== Scott ==
The problem is when you put elite bodybuilders into the fray you now have genetic superiors using steroids. What works for them has nothing to do with what works for the average person be it Yates or Sergio Oliva. Both high volume and HIT methods work, recovery from them really becomes the big issue. Do you want to wait hours , days or weeks to recover, and what do you really enjoy doing more?
Scott,
Wouldn’t HIT advocates suggest HVT does not work for the average person because it leads to over training? Theoretically, HVT should not be an effective means of bodybuilding (for the average person not on steroids) because it is “overdoing it” and results in overtraining.
HIT Vs HVT. How about medium volume, not to failure? i.e. 4-6 sets per muscle group 2-3 X per week.
I think people need to stop looking at it as a HIT vs HVT scenario and trying to find arguments why the other side doesn’t work.
I’ve done both, enjoyed both, and got results from both. More than anything, it’s going to come down to your own preferences and what you connect with.
Even within the HIT and HVT worlds, there are a wide range of differences. How Dorian trained, while called HIT and was influenced by Arthur Jones, still consisted of a body part split and more than one set/exercise and more than one exercise per body part. In the HVT world, you also have a lot of differences. How Serge Nubret trained was different than Arnold, which was different than Franco, and different the Ronnie or Cutler, etc.
Also, when you break things down, a lot of HVT guys are not going to failure on every set, but rather maybe will do a couple not to failure sets and one all out set. If you just count the final, failure set, is it HVT or HIT?
Ultimately, there will be no way of knowing what’s best for any one person, unless you train them one way their entire life, then go back and do it with a different method and compare. Or maybe, switching between periods of both is best…
My opinion is that guys who say HIT won’t build muscle aren’t correct and guys who say people who do HVT will over train are equally as wrong. What will get you to your genetic potential the fastest is a different conversation, but one where there isn’t a definitive answer and all people can do is look for others for examples and try things themselves.
3 Likes
Wouldn’t HIT advocates suggest HVT does not work for the average person because it leads to over training? Theoretically, HVT should not be an effective means of bodybuilding (for the average person not on steroids) because it is “overdoing it” and results in overtraining.
== Scott==
Yes some HIT advocates would say that and in some cases they would be right . It you train high volume to failure on every set more than likely you would overtrain very quickly. However if you trained high volume but short of failure depending on your constitution etc it might work for you.
I’ve been a HIT advocate forever but personally I found I much more enjoyed multiple sets over one set to failure. I love the feeling of the burn I get from 2 or 3 sets of failure vrs one set. Now I’ve always felt higher volume of like 10 sets per body part to be way over kill. Of course after multiple exercises of 2 or 3 sets it took me a whole lot longer to recover. Sometimes it would take a week or more before the next workout. I hate waiting that long . I like to workout often thus my fondness for 30 10 30. It gets almost the effect of to failure yet it doesn’t drain my system like failure or super high volume workouts do. I’m usually recovered in a day!
I understand the frustration, but I doubt you are going to find definitive answers for your questions. Here are a few random thoughts:
-
How the human body responds and adapts to stress is extremely complex. That is why it is very hard to study. When it comes to exercise, most studies try to look at a single training variable, and then use a large enough sample to extract an average response to that training variable. That can provide useful insight. But given that there are a large number of interacting variables, and that there are large variations in individual response, it is unlikely that you will be able to identify an optimal program for an individual from even a large collection of such studies. In the end, you have to experiment on yourself to find what works best for you.
-
Casting this as a black and white issue, either HIT or HVT, one must be right and the other must be wrong is unproductive. Volume and intensity lie on a continuum. There is a lot of territory between a Mentzer Ultra-consoidated routine and an Arnold 6 day per week bodybuilding split. HIT people are correct that you cannot max out intensity and volume at the same time. These have to be traded off. But that doesn’t mean maximum intensity and minimal volume are necessarily optimum, any more than it means that maximum volume with minimal intensity is optimum. There is probably a broad range in the middle where some combination of intensity and volume is most effective. Where that point lies may be highly individual, and certainly influenced by external lifestyle factors, as well as training history, age, sex, and genetics.
-
The way you cast the dichotomy implies doing the same routine all the time. What if optimum is actually to do both? Train HIT until you stall, then train HVT until you stall or burn out, then switch back to HIT. Such things are allowed. In fact, Dr. Darden’s specialization routines are exactly that: brief stretches where you up the volume for a particular body part. But he keeps the duration short, because eventually you do overload the body. It just doesn’t necessarily happen right away. Once you open that door, the number of permutations is vast, and no one will ever identify where optimum lies.
-
Failure to see improvement is not necessarily a sign of overtraining. In the sports literature, overtraining is often associated with a decline in performance. So if you are doing HIT and getting weaker, or find yourself getting hurt, that is a sign you are overtraining. If you do a HIT routine, allow yourself decent recovery, and don’t get stronger or bigger, it could mean you haven’t done enough in the workout to disrupt homeostasis. Instead of extending recovery further, maybe that is the time to dial back the intensity and up the volume.
-
I have heard a few HIT people say they got poor results with HVT, and then switched to HIT and got better results. I’ve heard other people claim the opposite: they stalled on low volume HIT routines and only made progress when they did more volume (which meant less intensity). Then you have folks like Dr. James Fischer, who discovered that he got about the same results with either approach. So for him, it was a no-brainer to do less because it created more free time for other things. What can we learn from that? People are different….
4 Likes
Thanks Scott and Al. I appreciate your understanding and opinions.
I did an experiment a while ago with 8-10 sets per muscle (each muscle trained once a week) with more of a Gironda/CTF approach. However, I saw no benefit and a lot of the work just felt like a waste. I now find no more than three sets a body part, shy of failure, to be enough. Sometimes I might end up with 4 sets (especially if doing something like the pulldown and row on back). But anything else absolutely feels like overkill to me. Now, this is training each muscle once a week. If were training a muscle more frequently, I would be doing less per muscle. If I were training a bodypart three times a week via full body, one good set per muscle seems like max.
2 Likes
Thanks guys, for an interesting discussion!
Al said what I thought, in his most recent post. A thing to point out are the the specialization routines with pre-exaustion, which represent both more intensity and volume - to break the pattern.
What surprised me at first, was how easily I could apply these routines (having tried three of Darden’s versions) - considering they represent an increase in both intensity and volume (and at first honestly scared me). That being said, I feel my foundation of HIT has prepared me well for these more demanding trials. But, the intensity is greater than the volume (and have to be carefully monitored).
I also like the idea of applying a period of light HVT consisting of max 4 sets on certain muscle groups. I believe you can’t progress over time without the other. Problem occurs when narrow-mindedness becomes dominant (“this is better than that, and I will not change”).
Another interesting aspect, touched on before in this forum, (that also Dr Schoenfeld stressed) - is the necessity of altering your routine regularly (I have asked Mark about that here previously). How often is the question? How great a change? This is where it becomes really interesting, in my current perspective. What if you apply A and B routines? Body splits?
I currently apply new A and B routines on 30-10-30 NTF alternating to failure, twice weekly. The A routine begin with Quad Killer specialization, followed by 6-7 machine excercises on other muscle groups. The B routine starts with Skinny Arm specialization, followed by 6-7 free weight excercises. Done this routines for 1,5 weeks and my instant reflection is I sleep more + my waist is shrinking (already?). More on this later.
3 Likes
I’d love to see more details on those Specialization routines. Though, maybe a separate thread is in order?
Great. Keep us posted.
1 Like
Hi Simon,
Make a search on “Ellington Darden” in the regular T-nation forum, and you will be rewarded with at least a handful of specialization routines! (Others are to be found in the books “The new HIT” and “The new BB for old school results” - both great books!)
1 Like
I have all those (I’m actually in the last one you listed). I was just wondering what level a routine a regular guy had success with…
Great Simon!
You and I have the same question! In my case it’s too early to tell, but as I said, my waist is shrinking (!?) and I find the strength gone up a bit in the specializations. I will make a new measurement with bioimpedance in a couple of weeks, and then we’ll see.
Since returning to 30-10-30 I also experience an interesting sensation of fullness in the muscles 24-72 hours post workout.
My only concern is whether I am pushing it too far this time (overtraining) but it doesn’t feel that way.