Any Non-Responders to HIT?

Dr Darden,

It seems HIT is made to work for most trainees who believe in the formula. That being said, have you encountered any outliers, non responders to HIT? If so, what are your thoughts on the reason behind it?

Interesting question, both from a HIT perspective, and a general strength training perspective. There have been efforts to study the degree of variation in response to various kinds of exercise.

1 Like

I’ve seen a few trainees who did not respond well to HIT. The problem is usually related to a lack of intensity and poor form.


Thanks @Ellington_Darden!

I came up with this question since some trainees I’ve talked to are having issues feeling the weight, and thus never reach either high intensity or mind-muscle connection, resulting in no progression. It seems lat excercises are the hardest in this regard.

Is it a possible solution to perform even slower repetitions with a lower weight for a longer TUT? At least that was my suggestion to them. Should take care of the form problem.

In the end I believe it all comes down to whether you are motivated to (believe in) strength training or not. I see too many trainees using the gym for primarily social reasons.

If you want to feel the weight you have to focus on the exercise and each rep

I see a lot of people in the gym just going thru motions and then they wonder why there are very little to no results…these are the people that need a good trainer

and that’s with any exercise program

1 Like

I think it all goes back to genetics . I remember when I first started learning about HIT, it was said that the typical way bodybuilders trained wasn’t applicable to us regular mortals, as you had to be a genetic superior to respond to such high volume. That is true , not argument there.

But I believe it’s also true that the great results from extreme low volume / high intensity ways advocated by guys like Dr. Ken are also limited to genetic ‘freaks’ who can tolerate and respond to it.

Don’t get me wrong , I DO believe the majority of people do too much and not hard enough , but also you shouldn’t take your training to levels when you have to reduce training volume to three set workouts , twice a week or three times a month , killing yourself each and every workout - like I did for too long - and expect great results . I think only the genetic elite will respond favorably to those ways just as some thrive on six days a week / two hour workouts.

The rest of us are in the middle somewhere , some requiring more than others and others less . I think that ‘one size fits all’ early HIT suggestion was dead wrong.

I heard a good interview by Pavlov (? spelling ) where he insisted that consistency was the key and not trying to out do you previous workout every time you train.

I now believe that consistency is the most important thing besides training hard enough and recovering. In order to do that, training in a way that you like and has you looking forward to your workouts is essential to keep that enthusiasm up.


I agree! Consistency is one of my biggest muscle building failings !

Consistency as in showing up on your planned workout days (even if you feel like shit)?

What!!?? Cardio isn’t the solution? Ha ha!!

I think most of us would agree that individuals who have the body structure and genetics to develop a pro level bodybuilding physique are fairly rare. I’d speculate that those who can do so on a low volume of training are even rarer, just based on the observation that most pro bodybuilders still use considerable volume. Folks like Yates and Mentzer may be outliers among the outliers.

I have seen some speculations that in order to get great results from intense, low volume training it helps to be fast twitch dominate with a highly efficient nervous system. The idea is that someone like that can quickly activate all that fast twitch fiber, and deplete it quickly. You’d be explosive and quite powerful for the amount of muscle you carried. And you’d be wiped out pretty quickly by your workouts, assuming that you train with relatively heavy loads. Folks with less efficient nervous systems might simply have to do more volume in order to reach the higher threshold muscle fibers. (I’ve seen some power lifting coaches suggest that women need to use, and can tolerate, more volume in training, because they lack the neural drive to engage fast twitch fiber to the same extent as men). I don’t know if those kinds of hypotheses still makes sense, given the current understandings about physiology. But I do recall reading such ideas in the past.

Of course, these are different considerations than the reality that some people simply don’t understand that they have to put effort into training in order to get any results.


Thanks @atp_4_me,

It’s great to finally see a picture of you - and a fit, muscular man you are indeed.

On a serious note, can you please provide more info on Kaatsu? Have you tried it yourself? Any sources on programs to follow? Anyone else here tried it? (Maybe a new thread in bigger, stronger, leaner)

Occlusion training could well be my next training program, as I like the idea. Also, probably worth a try on non-responders.

“Ton-” is the only kind of Katsu I do!

That’s the Kaatsu founder Yoshiaki Sato.

1 Like

Yoshiaki Sato is appearantly @atp_4_me! :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Yoshiaki Sato is appearantly @atp_4_me!

== Scott==
For all we know it could be? I put little stock in people on here who are afraid to post a picture of them selves.


That’s more than fair brother