Has anyone tried Dr. Darden’s book The New H.I.T? What were your results?
I bought it just for reference and the pictures of Viator and Arnold. I have a difficult time with the always training to failure-- I think that it has its benefits, but consistant training to failure taxes the body and the CNS.
This topic comes up from time to time. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was even an interview with Darden posted in one of the articles.
You might do a little searching and see if you come up with some good info.
I read the article a long time ago, I was just curious to see if anyone had any PERSONAL experience with the programs stated in the book.
Personally, I found them to become redundant and boring. I think changing up exercises needs to happen more frequently than he calls for. My personal opinion is that I found Chad Waterbury’s programs to be far more compelling than HIT.
Plus, there are a bunch of people around here that believe training to failure on a regular basis to be counter-productive.
[quote]beAman13 wrote:
I read the article a long time ago, I was just curious to see if anyone had any PERSONAL experience with the programs stated in the book.[/quote]
Is this idle curiosity or do you really want to know whether or not you should go on a HIT program?
Fuck old HIT and new HIT, this site has got tons of articles on training programs for every goal. If your serious about finding a new program and not just curious, then you have all you could want here for free.
I think Waterbury said training to failure was about a good idea as letting your kids play with Micheal Jackson. He is not the only one in the field that feels that way.
peace.
Just wondering, I bought it at a garage sale for 5 bucks. I just got finished with the One Lift A Day program two weeks ago and took off sometime so I was looking for something completely different.
I think HIT can be very good for beginners. I put on 12 pounds of muscle in a summer on HIT. BUT I had just graduated high school. I had never really lifted that seriously and I was taking a break from intense endurance training. I don’t think training to failure all the time is good at all. And I don’t think the volume in HIT is enough for much growth beyond newbie gains. If I did it today, I think the results would be very crappy.
I tried Philbin’s HIT routines for a few weeks. It was an interesting change, but the slow reps limited the amount of weight I could move, so I didn’t fell like I was getting stronger.
[quote]jcxt wrote:
I tried Philbin’s HIT routines for a few weeks. It was an interesting change, but the slow reps limited the amount of weight I could move, so I didn’t fell like I was getting stronger. [/quote]
Same thing happened to me man. I loaded on some super sugary creatine crap and fixed that problem real quick. Moral of the story is, I wasnt getting any stronger either.
Its just this time I felt like I was.
I have spent about 2 years doing various HIT stuff with very little progress. It was the first training “system” I really read about, and it did seem logical at the time - but I had almost zero gains. All my workouts were short, very hard and it would take hours before I could be functional again, but it did nothing for me.
I think you would just be spinning your wheels with it. Even though some HIT incarnations aren’t that bad for bodybuidling and improving strenght-endurance (Hardgainer, Dr. Ken Leister’s routines) - there are much better options available. The “science” behind HIT is pretty much false, and consists of dubious anecdotes and very strechted analogies.
Anyway, why not do the OLAD program again? If you had good gains, why not repeat it? Don’t just change routines for the sake of changing.