Colin, you have a great point, and I have never had a problem with the old Arthur Jones style of HIT training. Neither would I be averse to a trainee exercising like you and Coy have outlined. Although I don’t agree with everything you advocate and the assumptions HIT guys make with the all or nothing principle, I certainly don’t have a problem with it. By the way, you may be correct in avoiding the same exercise for the same number of reps on the same day, but we can argue that all day long. Fiber damage and the associated swelling along with the depletion of calcium and ATP stores very obviously increases with higher volume. Think of it like this: Your body adapts to whatever training stimulus you give it, and this includes exercise frequency and volume. Take a look at elite athletes like Dan O’Brien who weight train 5-6 days a week on top of their track and sport specific work. They have conditioned themselves to handle the volume and frequency. A trainee who religiously practices only HIT training cannot develop this adaptation to work load and frequency. So basically, I see frequency and volume as similar to loading. The body acclimates to whatever you give it. If you give it one set to failure only once a week, consequently your body will only be able to handle one set to failure, once a week. There is also concrete evidence that points to differing motor unit recruitment in the SAME exercise, changing only rep schemes. In other words, you will NOT activate the same motor units by performing a set of barbell curls for 10 reps as you would by using a heavier weight for 5 reps. This is indisputable and gives credence to the widely applied alternating volume/intensity theory of periodization. But again, I really don’t have a problem with trainees using 9-14 sets of very intense work, 3X a week. What I have a problem with is the ridiculous volume that Mentzer advocated. And what I have even more of a problem with is blowhards who take up Mike’s example of claiming outrageous gains in size and strength in only a matter of weeks by doing 3-5 sets once in a blue moon. It’s bullshit, nuff said. By Hetyeh’s example, he gained like 30 lbs of muscle and lost 60 lbs of fat in 6 weeks. So what was your total frequency in those six weeks Hetyeh?! You worked the entire body only TWICE!!! HAHAHAHAHA!
idiot I’ll correct you again, you keep saying what I claim and what I do, gee you say you in your great wisdome have no problem w/people who workout 3x’s a week,then you say I made claims based on and worked out twice in 6 wks. I guess you can not read. you say I claim 30lbs muscle gain and 60lbs fat loss in 6wks when I have not, I have said over and over what I claim but again you misrepresent. you say why don’t I post my name I DO! my last name is hetyey and my first name is stephen so I DO USE MY REAL NAME (I’m sure now you will say you don’t care but you asked)as far as poliquin goes here is a quote " intensity will not cause overtraining, volume WILL" gee thats your guy, how about a quote from TC about what he would do differently if he was starting over " take all work sets to failure" as far as strength coaches go in general they are not MUSCLE coaches the are STRENGTH coaches, if you do not understand that their main job is to improve ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE and NOT build muscle I can not help you. lets look at it another way, go back to reeves and grimick and those guys, I would say between this board and the steroid side the average reader of t-mag uses more juice than those guys ever did yet will NOT be anywhere as impressive, why? they trained at ALOT less volume, usualy 3x’s a week whole body each workout. I don’t know what your problem is but it is sad, you use a fake name follow me around like a puppy, ofcourse when I offer to pruve it you live in atlanta. if ANYONE believes anything this guy says I SAY than please read my posts, I workout 3x’s a week I hit each large bodypart w/2 sets (usualy drop or rest pause) and each small bodypart w/1 set (usualy drop set)I am the one useing my real name I am the one saying ANYONE that lives NEAR jersey I will pruve it, I am the one answering a question someone posted, to the idiot I gave MY REAL NAME (as I ALWAYS do). to everyone else, as always peace
Although I dont agree with everything HetYey225 says(does anyone agree with anyone all the time?) I do see here he was originally answering a question to the original poster about anyone who has used/uses HIT and what they do.
That being said propaghandi it was kinda outta line to slam him outfront on just a question he is answering.
I really dont care who has what stats on the net(we are all 6’9,350lbs at 6% bodyfat with 12inch cocks on the net lol) but he was just answeing a question,not slamming anyone elses methods.
That and even though I found him annoying at first, most of Hetyey’s posts are thoughtful and contribute good debate on this forum.
Don’t mind me I am trying to be a nicer person, at least for todsy lol.
I think assuming that HIT doesn’t work is because a person didn’t structure it to fit THEIR needs. Even Mentzer would point out that this was a SUGGESTED routine. It was not set in stone. As it turned out, most needed to up the frequency of their workouts, and more than one set would produce better results for the majority(not all). Oh, and finally, before this past week, no one had a fucking idea as to what COACH DAVIES’ could do, because none of his routines were explained. Listen, lets not be a bunch of followers here. People were praising him before his methods were even discussed. If you read through the two part interview, he doesn’t even begin to explain himself. All you know is that he has a great track record as a strength coach. The next week, the fucking forum is turning into the Coach Davies’ advice column. Now, this is in no way a low blow to the coach, but the readership. Mentzer, if anything, taught individuals to evaluate what they were doing and why it was being done. If someone couldn’t explain why they wrote a certain routine, then it was an act of fate, hoping that it would work if the person stuck it out.
Before Mike died I ha many conversations with him both in person and over the phone. He had a great ability to think outside the box and also make you look at things differently…I never did follow his programs, but I did and still do believe in the theory of HIT…Does it work forever? No!
I have been training myself for almost 20 years and others for 15 years and I have tried about everything and continue to read and research applying every new technique…some work and some I discard…I do use a 5x5 system…Pavel did not invent this system! I train Westside like Dave Tate. I use stuff from Dr. Ken Liestner,Poliquin, King,Sif, Simmons,Etc. The key is to never stop learning and trying new stuff…you cannot use only one tool to build a House…so why only use one system to build your body…
HEAVY SINGLES WORK…VOLUME WORKS…HIT WORKS…SLOW TEMPO WORK…BUT NOTHING WORKS FOREVER!
As far as comparing yourself to someone at the far right of the genetic pool top 2.5%…I would not do that…those athletes have better genes, better recovery, and many times better drugs…I am not saying that you cannot train yourself to a high level, but a professional athlete is just that…being inshape is their job…they do not work 8-10 hours a day and then train…they train, wacth filem, practice, eat , do restoration.
Coach Davies is a very intelligent guy and he is kind enough to take time out of his day to post here because he really wants people to learn and improve…should everyone blindy follow him and his ideas? NO, but you can learn from him and modify his ideas into the program that you are doing…One of the best things about training is that along the way you can always learn aslong s you keep your mind open…over the years that you train your body changes dramatically…recovery changes, neural changes, metabolic changes,how you eat changes-I wish I could eat like I did when I was 17 and recover, but these things change an youmust keep learning!
Sorry about the rant!
Seriously though if any of you are every going to be near Kokomo Indiana you are welcome to come to my gym,Powerhouse and train.
gmm, your point is completely invalid, and you’re looking at it the wrong way. Readers are not suddenly blindly following Coach Davies, but are rather intrigued by his controversial ideas and are seekers of knowledge. It’s exciting to have a different opinion on the board to learn from. He’s an experienced strength coach and obviously has a lot to offer. Does that mean I or anyone else here will blindly follow him? Absolutely not.
Hetyeh, you’re a fucking moron. I FORGOT! The athletes that train under the tutelage of these great strength coaches you mention are FAT, LAZY, AND WEAK, BUT THEY SURE DO KICK ASS ON THE FIELD!!! PROOF THAT THEIR HIGHER VOLUME METHODS DON’T LEAD TO HYPERTROPHY AND STRENGTH! (there goes your common sense argument, eh Hetyeh?)
And if you’re gonna quote Poliquin (who is NOT “my guy” by the way, but I have learned a great deal from him), at least do it accurately and specify the context of his quote. He was DEFINING intensity you prick! He was saying that intensity (as a % of 1RM), has nothing to do with how close a trainee goes to failure, and therefore does not directly contribute to overtraining. And similarly, let’s use some common sense here Hetyeh when examining this quote. Volume OBVIOUSLY can lead to overtraining, and NO ONE (including me or any strength coach) will deny this. It’s simply a matter of what is optimal, as your mentor likes to point out. Poliquin was only one example I gave, so let’s try some more. How’s about Dave Tate/Louie Simmons, Pavel Tsatsouline, John Davies, Tudor Bompa, Charles Staley, and Ian King? Oh, I forgot, they only coach for performance on the field and don’t know a thing about how to get big and strong (that truly was the worst argument I’ve heard from you yet).
And lastly, if you indeed do workout 3Xs per week, going to failure on each set, then I really don’t have a big problem with your training methods. I don’t believe that is what you have been portraying to the readers, (I thought I read once a week, but I may be wrong), but that’s fine by me. I do disagree with the argument of going to failure on every set, all the time, but that debate is completely worthwhile and acceptable to have. What is ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPTABLE is your ridiculous claims that you HAVE made to force people (just like Mike did) to adopt your beliefs. And you CERTAINLY HAVE claimed the outrageous things I stated before. Rather, you’re simply trying to deny it now that you realize the idiocy of your claims. How’s about a quote from this very thread Steve? : “from 258 to about 230 (kinda been around there for a couple of weeks) I said I gained 20-25lbs of muscle, but I said I had no body comp done.” So let’s check out those numbers toughguy. Your weight dropped 28 lbs, and you put on 20-25 lbs of muscle at the same time, all in six weeks. That amounts to a whopping 48lb fat loss and 20lb muscle gain if you stay on the conservative side of your claims. So where in that am I “misrepresenting” you Hetyeh? (or is it that I just realize that you’re full of shit and that pisses you off?) So instead of being a blowhard and a liar, you are now a hypocrit! Congratulations.
Game over Hetyeh. This argument is getting pointless, and people can no doubt see who is giving a logical argument and who is trying to be a tough guy and make stupid claims. I’ve wasted too much time on a stupid, hypocritical butt-head like you. So I’m anxious for whatever mental diahrea you decide to spew at me next, but this was my last response.
As Coy said, everything works for a while. In actuality, HD uses more than 1 set per bodypart when you consider the number of “warm up” sets that are performed. My only gripe with HD is the training to absolute failure. That in my mind means neural failure, ie not being able to even control an ecentric rep. I believe these are dangerous unless you have a very good spotter. I have only done 1 set in 17 years to neural failure and it scared me. Luckily I was on a Smith machine and managed to rack the bar before it landed on me. After I finish Ian Kings SS and Limping series, I plan on doing a low volume semi high intensity(ie, to concentric failure) twice a week workout plan. Probably for about 6 weeks as Coy has done and will consider it a recovery period but, who knows, maybe it will be hypertrophic as well. If it is, I will send Hetyey a plastic ear to replace his half eaten ear. If it isn’t, I’ll ask his soon to be wife to bite off the other one. As for Mr. Prop, I will miss his insight. 
While HIT may only give one kind of stimulus, that is indeed in the interest of being optimal. The whole idea is that a large, stong muscle is required for breif intense bouts of exercise, while nearly any size of muscle is capable of a large amount of exercise. I really don’t understand this whole General Physical Preparedness thing at all. Sounds to me like being “in shape”. A point that is often missed is that gym rats are in shitty shape because they work sort of hard on a bunch of sets of very similar exercises (especially when we split our bodies 4 ways and work only a small portion each session) and rest like lazy bastards (I figure that if the sets are any where near worthwhile in challange, most will rest about 4-5 minutes) inbetween. Talk about deconditioning (I have been there). If we work really hard and rest very little (between exercises that is) we will ensure the best condition possible. As far as athletic performance is concerned, it’s simple. To be better, just get stronger and practice the skills required. Pushing a wheel barrell, doing pushups and jumping jacks are only necessary if you are going to do these in competition. Drills should be specific and effective. Lying around like a sloth while weight training will not make you more explosive or stronger, but it can make you out of shape. How many out there have actuall given simple, safe and very hard training a try? I don’t mean 2 sets every nine weeks either. That is just bloody lazy.
can ajyone give me any PROOF that multiple sets work better than single sets taken to failure? all I ask for is ANY PROOF.
can anyone give me any PROOF that multiple sets work better than single sets taken to failure? all I ask for is ANY PROOF.
If the general message that Mike Mentzer imparted was, limit volume and bust your ass on work sets, then I think he was right on the money!
What kind of proof are you looking for Hetyeh? Is a theoretical argument backed up with real world successes (ie empirical evidence) good enough for you? Or must you see a scientific study that shows in graphical format how people who wipe their ass smell better than those who do not, before you start wiping your ass? The point is, in this game theory and real world results are all you have. How’s about you PROVE to me that one set to failure is superior to multiple sets? It can’t be done either way, because to PROVE something implies scientific law. I can make an argument and back it up with real world results, and maybe even a related study or two. If you’re looking for more than that either way, you’ll never find it.
According to Richard A. Winett, Ph. D., Multiple sets of an exercise are really no better than doing one good set. There are about 55 scientific studies on this topic and only 3 show any slight benefit of multiple sets. 53 show the results are the same.
You get just as big and strong doing one set per movement as two, three or for that matter any number of sets
Ok propagandi, I’ll give you that everyone is intrigued about a successful coaches methods, but seeing that he has yet to prove why exactly he the routine is geared as it is, etc, etc. everyone is still following on blind faith. This is a big problem with lots of routines, no one will question exactly why something is being done. Personally, I myself don’t train HIT, but I do like to know what it is that I’m training for and what I’m going to accomplish from doing certain exercises. Maybe I’ve missed some things that the coach has explained(I probably did). Please, don’t tell me that my point is invalid @#%&!, ok. Everyone who makes a post has a point. Whether you can understand it or choose to look at it in a different light is up to you.
Point taken gmm. I guess I should have said that I disagree with your point. I think the coach has explained himself pretty well though, you just might have missed a lot of his explanations. What did you want to be explained exactly? maybe I can help.
Just throwing my hat into the ring on this discussion. I’ve used HIT type routines for a couple years now, with what I think are good results (155 to 200 lbs at 5’11"). Some fat increase, sure, but mostly muscle. What I’ve seen of the HIT crowd is NOT HD/Mike Mentzer. Also, for any one who started out using a HIT routine 2x per week, that’s NOT what the coaches advocate. The idea is that recovery time has to increase by necessity as intensity increases (for those not juicing). If you’re not pushing up significant weight, then you probably don’t have to back off to 2x/week or 3x every two weeks. I used a HIT routine 2x per week not because I felt it was THE BEST type of training out there, but because it FIT INTO MY LIFE and was something I knew I could stick with for the long haul. Could I be bigger on another routine? Maybe. Would I burn out on something with more volume? Probably, as I have limited time to train.
As for the proof of multiple sets vs one set, I don't think any of the studies have demonstrated a significant superiority of one over the other as far as muscle and strength gains. However, the risk of overtraining increases with the multiple sets (just as it would with one set to failure done too often). So the theory is this -- why increase the risk with very little to gain? Made sense to me. With all that said, however, if I had more time to lift, I'd definitely increase my training volume because I LOVE TO LIFT. And I think that's the common thread we all share, whether it's volume, HIT, HD, or whatever.