T Nation

All Coaches:HIT Come Back?

HI to all Coaches,Including CT,CW,CS…etc.

Recently i join the BIGGER-ARM Challenge, which give me some question about the come back of HIT(bring back by Dr.Darden).
What is your opinion about the following:

1)low frequency
2)low volume(down to 1set only)
3)8-12rep range
4)training to failure
5)60%carb diet(that means low protein)
most confuse topic is:
6)lift slowly,sometime use superslow reps.

Can any of you give me some SCIENTIFIC support to oppose these points?

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
HI to all Coaches,Including CT,CW,CS…etc.

Recently i join the BIGGER-ARM Challenge, which give me some question about the come back of HIT(bring back by Dr.Darden).
What is your opinion about the following:

1)low frequency
2)low volume(down to 1set only)
3)8-12rep range
4)training to failure
5)60%carb diet(that means low protein)
most confuse topic is:
6)lift slowly,sometime use superslow reps.

Can any of you give me some SCIENTIFIC support to oppose these points?
[/quote]
The proof will be in the pudding…although I’d be surprised if many guys will have the strength to knock the skin of a pudding.

I think this challenge is a great idea and I am particulary looking forward to seeing how people are going in a month or two afterwards and then again in 6 months time.

As far as scientific proof goes…there’s plenty but that is easy enough for you or others to find.

Let me just say…variation is good. Will the people on the challenege have a positive result? Probably some of them…depending on their current state of training and their approach to the program. Could I write you another 10 completely different and equally effective programs? You bet your arse.

How about we find some volunteers who would be willing to do the following?

1)high frequency
2)high volume
3)4-6rep range
4)non training to failure
5)low carb diet(that means high protein)
6)lift quickly, sometimes using explosive reps.

and then we can do the Pepsi Challenge?

You see one of the problems with most HIT devotees or any other devotees for that matter is that they ignore a huge number of other methodologies that could greatly increase there progress, reduce their risk of injury and lead to far greater performance.

ManMeat,

Thanks for your reply,although i’ll take that bigger arm challenge, i still not believe HIT is the ONLY way to train. i’ve gain more than 100lbs in 9years (110lbs => 215lbs)
and i ALWAYS changing my routine, i’ve try HIT sometime(when Dorian is MR O), but never gain size from it, just gain a lot of tendon pain.

the challenge you make up is good, but i don’t know any author in T-Nation will make that challenge official…

anyway, thanks for your support.

Hey Manmeat,
There’s actually very little “scientific” proof for a lot of this stuff. Instead, its extrapolation from related studies, individual experimentation, theory and comparisons of trainees. The words of the trainers and educators are valuable, however, because this is their profession.
Unfortunately, no two trainees are exactly alike, making true comparison studies impossible. At one end of the continuum, you have the Bo Jacksons of the world who don’t need to work out to kick your ass and set incredible athletic records. On the other end, you have many pussies who can’t handle the pain or dedicate enough of their precious time to working out on a consistent basis. Somewhere in the middle are guys like Brian Bozworth, who was a gym rat, but couldn’t make it past his own psychological weaknesses when it came to competing in athletics.
Most newbies and weak dudes would be better directed to just shut up and lift. Analyze and plan when you plateau.

[quote]slt wrote:
Hey Manmeat,
There’s actually very little “scientific” proof for a lot of this stuff. Instead, its extrapolation from related studies, individual experimentation, theory and comparisons of trainees. The words of the trainers and educators are valuable, however, because this is their profession.
Unfortunately, no two trainees are exactly alike, making true comparison studies impossible. At one end of the continuum, you have the Bo Jacksons of the world who don’t need to work out to kick your ass and set incredible athletic records. On the other end, you have many pussies who can’t handle the pain or dedicate enough of their precious time to working out on a consistent basis. Somewhere in the middle are guys like Brian Bozworth, who was a gym rat, but couldn’t make it past his own psychological weaknesses when it came to competing in athletics.
Most newbies and weak dudes would be better directed to just shut up and lift. Analyze and plan when you plateau.[/quote]

I know that turtles are the only creatures that can breath through their arses but you may be one of the few people that can talk out of theirs.

[quote]ManMeat wrote:
I know that turtles are the only creatures that can breath through their arses but you may be one of the few people that can talk out of theirs.
[/quote]

That’s great point, and “shut up & lift” is not what i want to see in this post. sorry, i’ve been training for 9 years. gaining 100+lbs already.

not a new comer. i’m a real thinking bodybuilder. not a single-mind, blind HIT believer. that’s why i want Scientific backup to shut those HIT follower once and for all…and open up their minds about nutrition & training…no matter that guy have 3Ph.D or not.

Come back? Did it ever go away? There were always some HIT devotees. The only news is that it actually made a debute on T-Nation as contributing material. Again, I see no reason disproving it as there isn’t any proof for it. Unless you’ve seen anyone with a decent physique doing it.

I don’t like HIT because it trashes the nervous system even before you finish a workout so your performance in the latter excercises greatly suffers. And on top of that they recommend full-body routines which have about 8-10 excercises taken to absolute failure. After 3 compound movements performed that way the rest of your workout is crap.

Here’s the simplest scientific proof against HIT: To build more muscle you must get stronger. Do you see any strength athletes training to failure? Case closed.

[quote]Majin wrote:
Come back? Did it ever go away? There were always some HIT devotees. The only news is that it actually made a debute on T-Nation as contributing material. Again, I see no reason disproving it as there isn’t any proof for it. Unless you’ve seen anyone with a decent physique doing it.

I don’t like HIT because it trashes the nervous system even before you finish a workout so your performance in the latter excercises greatly suffers. And on top of that they recommend full-body routines which have about 8-10 excercises taken to absolute failure. After 3 compound movements performed that way the rest of your workout is crap.

Here’s the simplest scientific proof against HIT: To build more muscle you must get stronger. Do you see any strength athletes training to failure? Case closed.[/quote]

That’s right, and i even post message to Dr.Darden about what i’ve learn about training&nutrition from CW, CT, JB,LL, etc. but he reply that he didn’t read a lot of their writings, i guess that’s why he still believe his New HIT & 60%carb,low protein diet is the ONLY way to build a great body…
a single-way thinking…

[quote]Monster Wong wrote:
Majin wrote:
Come back? Did it ever go away? There were always some HIT devotees. The only news is that it actually made a debute on T-Nation as contributing material. Again, I see no reason disproving it as there isn’t any proof for it. Unless you’ve seen anyone with a decent physique doing it.

I don’t like HIT because it trashes the nervous system even before you finish a workout so your performance in the latter excercises greatly suffers. And on top of that they recommend full-body routines which have about 8-10 excercises taken to absolute failure. After 3 compound movements performed that way the rest of your workout is crap.

Here’s the simplest scientific proof against HIT: To build more muscle you must get stronger. Do you see any strength athletes training to failure? Case closed.

That’s right, and i even post message to Dr.Darden about what i’ve learn about training&nutrition from CW, CT, JB,LL, etc. but he reply that he didn’t read a lot of their writings, i guess that’s why he still believe his New HIT & 60%carb,low protein diet is the ONLY way to build a great body…
a single-way thinking…[/quote]

I think you’re both should take hit for what it’s worth. Yes, it does work for some, and that for your avg. joe this would be a near impossible feat to finish one of these workouts. Now, as far as the high carb works it’s more about a higher volume of calories if I am correct. At least that’s behind Jones’s view that you must take in an excess of calories to gain muscle.

And Jones says to do this by upping carbs. Nothing wrong with that, becuase in his book Darden says to do upside down bodybuilding and lean out on a 1500 cal. a day diet and then to bulk up using the hit training. And majin, what i think should be done is take some of the hit principles and try to work them in to your routine. I often train using the 5 and 5 rep tempo as does the C. Thibaudea. I also train to failure. I don’t always use these techniques and I don’t train full body every workout.

But the point is like with any other methods try it and then make it your own by adapting it to your program and your goals.

[quote]slt wrote:
Hey Manmeat,
… Somewhere in the middle are guys like Brian Bozworth, who was a gym rat, but couldn’t make it past his own psychological weaknesses when it came to competing in athletics.
…[/quote]

The Boz was actually a good football player. He was overhyped but he was still good.

His career was cut short by injuries.

He was far better than people give him credit.

Sorry for the hijack.

The Boz was actually a good football player. He was overhyped but he was still good.

You’re right. I took the easy shot based on the Bo Jackson reference.

The most muscular guy in my gym happens to train exactly the way Ronnie Coleman apparently trains when I look at his training video’s :
high volume, explosive concentric, non-existing eccentric, lots of cheating and momentum to keep the big weights moving.

OK, the fact those guys are on a lot of gear plays a role in the way they (can) train, but frankly I never saw a muscle behemoth following a 12 week program and counting his rep speed.
Of course the question always is : do you want to be strong as a power/weightlifter, or do you want to look as a bodybuilder?

Personally I used to be a functional training adept, but since I don’t compete (I’m too tall to be competitive) and nobody seems to care about how much I can squat, I now prefer building a pleasing physique and trying to keep it as long as possible. I know 50+ bodybuilders who still look good. In which other sports do you see that?

This week I’ve been looking at the european weightlifting championships. Those (young) guys are awfully strong and no doubt trained like hell to reach that level, but frankly I don’t want to look like them. Ask any woman : you won’t find a single pleasing physique among those athletes.

Here’s my take on the VARIOUS mechanisms of hypertrophy. I came up with 7 basic different mechanisms which all should be involved to some degree. HIT takes kind of the middle ground of them all. I would prefer using “all”

  1. GPP: get in better shape you can train and recover harder. High volume, low absolute load. Example: sled dragging, (power cardio). This is certainly at the far end of the spectrum.

  2. Active feeding: Feeder workouts to directly provide nutrients to the muscle. You could do this every day for sure. Most common recommendation: 30% of max done for 20+ reps (as high as 50-100 continuous reps). The load must be less than 60% to prevent the cutoff of blood flow.

1 and 2 fit so closely together that there is probably no good reason to separate them for long term hypertrophy. Just use GPP activities that also act as feeder movements.

  1. Substrate recovery. (One problem with HIT is that with one set, your body does not need to recover and rebuild energy reserves quickly because your not going to be doing another set any time soon). Substrate recovery would be 10 x 10 at an extreme. 3 x 10 at 65% done with a pre-set short recovery period (60 seconds) is what I’m thinking about here.

It’s just a little too heavy to use as a feeder workout. This, I believe increases energy facilitating enzymes in the muscle cell, perhaps AMP and ADP.

  1. Substrate storage. This is in line directly with HIT. You deplete short term energy reserves completely, but do not make your muscles follow that up in a short time frame. This would cause more ATP, and glycogen storage primarily in my opinion. This may be the quickest way to add muscle, but also the fastest muscle lost. I do not believe that it is primarily muscle fiber you are building, but at a decent load you can probably tap into the fibers themselves a little.

Guidelines: Enough load that you can disrupt blood flow for 40+ seconds of continuous TUT. This would be 60% max or more AND continuous tension. The heavier you go, the more you move toward mechanism #5.

  1. Myofiber damage and repair. TRUE HYPERTROPHY. I think this would be die to around 80%, fast positive, controlled negative, up to 10 sets of 3 (where have we heard that before?) Russian numbers saying about 5 x 3, or 3 x 5 at 80-85% for advanced lifters but probably more reps for an intermediate (5 x 5, 8 x 3 etc).

  2. Neuromuscular firing frequency (which ultimately will limit your ability to perform any other method of hypertrophy training). Maximal weight that you can move, period. Ideally in a target ROM where the movement is moving very slowly. You should run out of ATP within 3-5 continuous seconds of MAXIMAL force production.

  3. Tendon adaptations-both structural and neurological. Ideal: 50-60% of maximal load done ballistically. If you don’t raise the set point for your tendons, you will never be able to push as hard as possible.

And all of these mechanisms have different recovery rates so just try doing them all at once.

OK here’s a shot at putting them all together.

Let’s take the lats:

  1. Chins: Weight chin-add weight until you cannot complete a rep. Attempt to raise yourself as hard as possible-or hold yourself-for 5-6 seconds. Repeat.

  2. 5 or 6 x 3 at 80% max chin or pulldown. About 60-90 seconds rest between sets.

  3. 2 sets at 60-65% done for 12 slow and controlled reps. Do the first set-no more than 12 reps. Rest 45 seconds only and attempt to repeat. That’s all.

Next day, or 4+ hours later: 1 set of 50-100 light pulldowns.

all i can say is ive been using hit for the majority of my 10 years lifting. i lift once every 2-3 weeks and have yet to quit growing. where most people fail is in their understanding of it. id recommend hit the mike mentzer way. and you need to have a open mind. peace.

[quote]flemishlion wrote:
The most muscular guy in my gym happens to train exactly the way Ronnie Coleman apparently trains when I look at his training video’s :
high volume, explosive concentric, non-existing eccentric, lots of cheating and momentum to keep the big weights moving.

OK, the fact those guys are on a lot of gear plays a role in the way they (can) train, but frankly I never saw a muscle behemoth following a 12 week program and counting his rep speed.
Of course the question always is : do you want to be strong as a power/weightlifter, or do you want to look as a bodybuilder?

Personally I used to be a functional training adept, but since I don’t compete (I’m too tall to be competitive) and nobody seems to care about how much I can squat, I now prefer building a pleasing physique and trying to keep it as long as possible. I know 50+ bodybuilders who still look good. In which other sports do you see that?

This week I’ve been looking at the european weightlifting championships. Those (young) guys are awfully strong and no doubt trained like hell to reach that level, but frankly I don’t want to look like them. Ask any woman : you won’t find a single pleasing physique among those athletes.[/quote]

you must mean powerlifting, a lot of oly lifters are jacked as hell to meet their weight class, obviously not the superheavyweights, but many are pretty cut up.

Same goes for powerlifters who have to cut to meet their class weight. Just because the biggest beasts are ginoroumously fat doesn’t mean everyone in the sport is.

It’s like Shaq and Earl Boykins, they both play the same sport, professionally, but one is 2 feet taller and about twice as heavy as the other guy.

The research on hypertrophy is 50+ years old.

[quote]ironmanlives79 wrote:
all i can say is ive been using hit for the majority of my 10 years lifting. i lift once every 2-3 weeks and have yet to quit growing. where most people fail is in their understanding of it. id recommend hit the mike mentzer way. and you need to have a open mind. peace. [/quote]

LOL

You remind me of a guy on another site that claims to be 330 lbs with single-digit bodyfat, can sprint for hours, do something like 100 dips (at a bodyweight of 330), and who trains sports superstars and international celebrities, all from a backwoods town in the midwest. And he attributes it all to Mentzer HIT.

In other words, what a crock of shit.

Ive done a search on google and I couldnt find what the -HIT- Parameters are. What does his workout routine call for? What is it?

[quote]ironmanlives79 wrote:
all i can say is ive been using hit for the majority of my 10 years lifting. i lift once every 2-3 weeks and have yet to quit growing. where most people fail is in their understanding of it. id recommend hit the mike mentzer way. and you need to have a open mind. peace. [/quote]

If you single-mind, boring as hell HITers come to my post, then please involve a before/after photo to show us the results.

myself, in the past 9-10years, rarely useHIT, but use high-volume, lots of variety, non-failure, high-frequency training, and i’ve gain more than 100lbs without drugs!!! and because i’m not doing the same thing over and over for 9year, i’ve FUN, like CS’s “21-day itch” said, we need to have FUN. otherwise i’ll quit at the very first year.