Training with a High Intensity vs 'High Intensity Training'

[Tougher]

Let’s see if I can articulate this properly. If not, let me know and I’ll try again.

I think of capital HIT as the old school, full body, 2-3 times per week, 1 set to absolute failure training. Everything else, as long as it’s done intensely, is lower case hit, or “training with high intensity.” This can include everything from super slow, 30-10-30, eccentric training, to Dorian’s training, to high frequency, high volume, strongman, powerlifting, etc.

People from all camps can be seen training hard and different styles work for different people or people at least enjoy different styles. If you look at the pros, how Arnold, Sergio, Serge, Dorian, Ronnie, Jay, etc trained were all different, but you can’t argue the results.

I think that’s one of the great things about how the forums are being moderated. It’s getting everyone out together and sharing.

[mr.v3lv3t]

So, where do eccentric-only leg presses fit into this equation?

[Gazz]

Training with a High Intensity means using a weight which is a high percentage of your 1 rep max.
Training with high intensiveness means training at a high RPE level (to failure or near failure)
Not my thoughts but those of Christian Thibaudeau.
Makes perfect sense to me actually to differentiate between the two. You could go to failure on a set of 20 reps (high intensiveness) but obviously the percentage of 1RM (intensity) would be lower.
So perhaps HIT is a misnomer and should be retitled High Intensiveness Training.
Gazz

[dagill2]

I really like this use of nomenclature.

[JamesBrawn007]

I think Mentzer preached for years that if he would be remembered for anything it would be the inverse relationship between intensity and volume. If you’re training to failure (and beyond) on multiple sets multiple times a week over a steady duration, chances are you are not, in fact, training with the intensity level you think.

[hogar]

Exactely!

[The_Mighty_Stu]

I’ll agree with that,., of course in hindsight I think way too many guys coming up in the late 90’s worried too much about overtraining and likely shots themselves on the foot for a while (myself included)

[carlbm]

“High intensity training” seems to me to be a “brand” of training. And idea that applies to a small percentage of “training with high intensity”.
Much like HIIT and Tabata cardiovascular work outs.

Tabata is a form of HIIT - but not all HIIT is Tabata. The issue comes when some people don’t appreciate that just because your training does not fit within the parameters of Arthur Jones’s or Mike Mentzer’s HIT training does not mean its not intense. I did the Matt Kroc Squat programme from this site a few years back. I’m pretty sure this does not count under the brand HIT. But its was pretty freaking insane.

For me - when someone says they are using high intensity training - I think of any training that can’t be done for more that 6-8 weeks without a proper week off. There are lots of ways to do this. Massive volume, lots of drop sets, peaking, deepwater. Anything unsustainable for more than 6-8 weeks.

[melisnmatt]

As Jones often said, “You can train hard or you can train long, but you can’t do both.” That, to me, defines High Intensity Training

[Chris_Colucci]

I appreciate all the input and opinions. Seems like we’re mostly on the same page about what/why/how, with just a couple of outliers that still share some of the same underlying principles.

Also glad to hear there’s really no reason to try talking about HIT training in one forum and other training methods separately since there’s so much crossover. As is often the case…

[carlbm]

There is ameme I see Tnation use on face book sometimes:

A cross fitter, power lifter and body builder all walk into a room. Because its not the internet that all bond over lifting weights and working hard.

Or similar. It very true.

[Professor_Hulk]

I agree with a lot of what’s been said above. Intensity is a % of 1RM. Intensiveness is a RPE. The one all-out set style should have originally been championed “Highly Intensive Training” but whatever.

I personally always liked the old adage, “if you want to do more than one set, you’re not training hard enough.”

Only because I personally prefer to warm up and do one all-out set. Not because it’s the most effective way to train. No where near it. Its just what I enjoy.

Part of me wishes I had followed high volume BB-Stlye bro splits for at least a little while in my younger days to gain some size so that today, I could actually look as strong as I am.

Although, it is fun to walk in a gym looking like a 40 year old couch potato and blow peoples’ minds with big weights.

Training with either High intensity or high intensiveness will get you strong but not very big at all (genetic gods aside). Training with higher Volume and frequency will get you big, but not very strong.

Before you all flame me, let me illustrate my point.

Lifter A). One of the best bodybuilders out there who nearly everyone respects, John Meadows. Trained on high volume BB style bro splits forever, still does. Dude has 20-inch arms. I watched one of his videos the other day and he was doing rack pulls from just below the knee with 405. It was heavy for him. His rep speed slowed significantly after a few reps.

Lifter B) Me. Trained using one all-out set for my entire lifting career. If you saw me on the street, you wouldn’t even think I lift. I’m one missed training session away from looking like Barnie Fife. 405 in the rack pull is child’s play for me. I routinely rep 585 RDL style without using the rack pins

If you want to look like you lift, and you’re not a genetic god, you need volume.

Ideally, we should all train with a good mix of both.

Unless of course, you are someone like Mike Mentzer or Casey Viator and your muscle bellies are exactly the same length as your bones and you have triple the androgen receptors that other mere mortals do.

Then you can do one set of walking in the gym and taking a sip from the water fountain every 19 days and get yoked out of your mind.

[TrainForPain]

I don’t disagree with you at all. I typically at least (in my own opinion - no haters) look like I lift, but I’m likely one of the weaker dudes on here. Surprise, surprise - I prefer to bro out.

[T3hPwnisher]

@Professor_Hulk

Lifter A). One of the best bodybuilders out there who nearly everyone respects, John Meadows. Trained on high volume BB style bro splits forever, still does. Dude has 20-inch arms. I watched one of his videos the other day and he was doing rack pulls from just below the knee with 405. It was heavy for him. His rep speed slowed significantly after a few reps.

John was quite accomplished in powerlifting while still being a bodybuilder by his own accounts. To see what he is moving now, later in life, several injuries, surgeries and a heart attack later, is not quite fully capturing the picture.

[TrainForPain]

Also true. He was a west side guy and squatting like 600lbs when he graduated high school.

[T3hPwnisher]

Yup.

@dt79 knows all about the old “weak big guys at the gym”, stuff, haha.

[TrainForPain]

I guess to clarify my own statement, I was thinking in terms of “maximal.”

I do think it takes some volume for maximal hypertrophy.

I don’t think maximal (as in relative to all the other strong humans) strength is necessary for maximal hypertrophy. Like all sports, there’s a point of diminishing returns with any individual variable. But, like all those sports, it probably won’t show up for most of us because we aren’t at that level.

I can still get stronger, within a rep range, but it just beats me up too much to push a lot of low-rep barbell work to be worth it for my goals (whatever those might be anymore). I’m only my own example in this instance.

But extremes work both ways: being weak is certainly not going to get you bigger.

[average_al]

To me, this is still the classic definition of HIT:

@Chris_Colucci

Traditionally, HIT is best associated with Arthur Jones or Mike Mentzer and is synonymous with full-body workouts; often, but not necessarily, machine-based exercises; generally one work set per bodypart; and training up to or beyond muscular failure. If you checked some or all of those boxes, you were training “HIT style”. If you didn’t, then you didn’t.

At the time that Dr Darden coined the term, he was clearly going against the conventions of the academic world, where intensity was defined as intensity of load, or the percentage of your 1 RM. I don’t think he was trying to change the nomenclature or improve the nomenclature so much as establish strong brand identity for the Arthur Jones way of training.

The longer I follow this stuff, the more I realize that often the way training programs are described and pitched is a big part of the marketing and branding of the training system. (Think a bit of about Cross Fit and Starting Strength as established brands. Each has it’s own language and set of principles; some of it is meaningful attempt to communicate a training philosophy, but some of it is designed to differentiate for marketing purposes.)

In practice, there is a continuum involving intensity of effort, proximity to failure, training load, and training volume. There are lots of ways to slide around on this continuum, and get reasonable results. Far be it for me to tell anyone else which part of the continuum is the right place to train for them. A lot depends on your age, genetics, natty or not status, and objectives.

Personally, I do find that there is a pretty significant qualitative difference to training to failure and beyond vs stopping short of that point. I think many people, if they push too hard and too long at the point of failure will burn themselves out neurologically, and inevitably limit how much volume they can get done in a session. I’d say that folks who are willing to burn themselves out with that one set to verge of dying failure are still following the classical HIT approach. If you are not, and you are judiciously dancing close to failure and managing fatigue in order to do more volume, then you are not following the classical HIT philosophy.

Whether or not it should be called HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, HIGH EFFORT TRAINING, or something else is, I guess, more a matter of semantics.

[planetcybertron]

I think…to an extent it’s subjective. But I say to an extent, because In general, our bodies have the final say-so in how it presents itself under certain circumstances/training set-ups/etc.

Training with a high intensity can yield so many different responses, versus high intensity training (dont get me wrong they both can yield different results, but just for argument sake.) High intensity training, while there’s a fair amount of different training set-ups, it seems they tend to follow general principles, so while they aren’t the EXACT same…they’re the same?

So like…From my personal experience, and just observations, I typically see the most optimal results concerning intense training in the form of increasing the poundages solely, increasing pounds AND increasing volume, or increasing volume solely. I leave frequency out of this mix, because to me at least, frequency isn’t that much of a heavy determinant. But I’d say that’s dependent on what you’re doing specifically. Again…just my opinion.

But then concerning training with a high intensity, that’s where I find that stuff really can be all over the place? I mean it can be, and sometimes it can’t be. I’d lean more towards saying there’s more variation to be had? I also think training with a high intensity can definitely become more specialized when used in certain activities. Not saying high intensity training also can’t be very specialized, both can, but I do think they both can diverge into their own corners, while both carrying overlapping principles.