one that moves me towards my goals.
as generic as I can make it.
I think there is an overemphasis in some of the above on “intensity” in the HIT sense (not the sense used in exercise science) of considering it to be the Holy Grail to fry the nervous system with each set, burning out all the circuit breakers (so to speak) and being so wiped out after 8 total work sets for the day, or whatever small number, that it’s possible to train in this manner again only say twice more during the week, if even that, for again no more sets than this.
The fact that Dorian could make phenomenal gains in such a manner (with some working up in weight also, and more frequency than this) does not mean that all individuals will, nor that it is best for all individuals.
There’s no shortage of individuals who fervently believe and follow this philosophy and don’t get far. They’re called “hardgainers” or “jedis.” And yes it is hard for them to gain in the long-term training this way.
Just check out any HIT discussion site: it’s all “Boo hoo I am a hardgainer” and most don’t look like they lift at all.
Myself I was actually foolish enough to follow this method for the first three years of training. So it is not that I am personally unfamiliar with it.
Treating “intensity” in the HIT sense as the be-all and end-all, let alone the definition of a good workout, is a mistake.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I think there is an overemphasis in some of the above on “intensity” in the HIT sense (not the sense used in exercise science) of considering it to be the Holy Grail to fry the nervous system with each set,
Burning out all the circuit breakers (so to speak) and being so wiped out after 8 total work sets for the day, or whatever small number, that it’s possible to train in this manner again only say twice more during the week, if even that, for again no more sets than this.
The fact that Dorian could make phenomenal gains in such a manner (with some working up in weight also, and more frequency than this) does not mean that all individuals will, nor that it is best for all individuals.
There’s no shortage of individuals who fervently believe and follow this philosophy and don’t get far. They’re called “hardgainers” or “jedis.” And yes it is hard for them to gain in the long-term training this way.
Just check out any HIT discussion site: it’s all “Boo hoo I am a hardgainer” and most don’t look like they lift at all.
Myself I was actually foolish enough to follow this method for the first three years of training. So it is not that I am personally unfamiliar with it.
Treating “intensity” in the HIT sense as the be-all and end-all, let alone the definition of a good workout, is a mistake.[/quote]
Agreed. I think its optimal to be “tired” after a workout, but not “wiped out”. If I ever reach a point of over exhaustion or inability to move, I know I pushed my self too far.
Heck, I’ve had workouts where I sweat and bled, but my numbers were actually going DOWN! I knew my CNS was taking such a beating from all this. I had to back off.
So instead of going by “exhaustion”, I go by breaking records.
Save the huffing, puffing and racing heart beat for cardio.
Fantastic additions, thanks.
I’ve been reading (or more honestly, have books and will be) on HIT training.
I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on HIT too much, as I’m sure there are plenty heated ones out there already!!
Would it be fair to say that you could utilise HIT training on occasion… say for four to six weeks and then move on?
I’d imagine that it would give your body something to ‘think about’ if you know what I mean.
If you don’t, then what I’m getting at is the shock factor that would promote a new series of gains. Adaptation and such :-p
Thanks again guys,
Toniy
Yes, sure, actually personally I think it’s a good idea to periodically have some times at lower volume.
I always live by Lou…Always do better than last time.