It’s all relative anyway. I mean, I “like” front squats more than I “like” back squats, but compared to something I actually like, like drinking rum and getting blown, I really don’t like them very much at all.
11 Likes
I think that’s the key. I’ve also done HIIT as laid out by Darden in the book Puff mentioned. It’s interesting, but I can’t imagine it’s optimal for very many people longer term. Casey Viator and Mentzer are the only two big names I can think that follwed it and Metzer did his own thing iirc.
2 Likes
Yates kind of followed it too. But he blended it with splits.
The base premise is work really friggin hard with good form. Can’t argue with that premise. But I just didn’t have the energy for upper body after ball-busting lower body sets.
2 Likes
Listened recently to a Joe Rogan podcast featuring Dorian Yates; says he followed a HIT routine and that Jones was one of his biggest influences.
Yeah I just picked up Darden’s book at a used book store, and it’s got me turning pages. Darden is very straightforward and doesn’t talk too much fluff. So far it’s a good follow up book to Body by Science by Dr. Doug McGuff.
As far as connective tissues, extra rest days follow higher intensities, from what I read in the book.
1 Like
If you want to train exactly like Yates, you need an experienced spotter, and hopefully someone who will also holler at you like Leroy. The objective is to bring the target muscle to failure within a single set. This will not happen when doing compounds like bench pressing for the pecs while you’re training alone in your parents’ basement because the pecs will not be fully fatigued before other muscles start taking over. Pushing it further will lead to a contortionist act which will most likely cause injury over time, which would not be worth it if looking at it from a risks vs returns perspective. So, if this is the case, more sets to cumulatively fatigue the target muscle while bringing the set to, or close to technical failure would be a more advisable way of training.
2 Likes
There’s a handful of ways one can reach (near) muscle failure. The drudgery of pushups can get one there in their parents basement, but training at <20% 1RM is suboptimal.
There is no better shortcut though than eccentric loading, if it can be safely and practically applied.
Sure, you can also use machines and dumbells and/or play with ROM in a commercial gym. The point is, other methods work just as well with less risk vs returns.
So, unless you have tried various methods over the years and have decided this one is most suitable for you through objective evaluation of results, all I’m seeing here is someone latching on to, and vigorously defending and justifying a certain ideology.
2 Likes
Did you not expect to find opinions on forums?
HIT is a protocol. Crossfit is an ideology.
I don’t know if I’m getting turbo speedy strength gains with HIT. I didn’t wake up and see the body of Steve Reeves this morning.
I don’t have an identical twin to compare to.
I find it is the most efficient way to train, and my time is precious. Or at least it was my senior year of college when I discovered HIT after training 6 days a week.
There’s other things I’d rather be doing.
They call themselves Jedi…
I train about 3-4 hours per week. I’d say my gym time is pretty efficient, given my results. I honestly can’t remember the last time I hit the gym 5 times in 1 week. Maybe a couple years ago? Might not be that recent.
As to the original point… it’s too dogmatic. I think the thought behind is generally fine, assuming the sentiment is ‘if you’re not working hard, you probably won’t get good results’. But the word ‘like’ is so subjective, and masochists like myself probably do like a lot of things in the gym that produce results.
I like lifting 300 lbs + Atlas Stones. That doesn’t mean I’m ‘doing it wrong’. I like shit that’s tough.
Last thing: calling HIT the most effficient way to train is very goal specific. Your statement has the underlying assumption that you are training for aesthetics, just generally building muscle size and strength. It’s probably a reasonably efficient way to train for bodybuilding. It’s not for powerlifting, it’s not for strongman. Or most sports outside of the iron game.
5 Likes
Probably worth mentioning that it seems most BBers/aesthetics types go through a HIT phase at some point in their lifting career. (I know I did.) OP, come back in 5 years, and we’ll see if you remain as enthusiastic a proponent. (And if your ‘pukes’ score is still zero…Chances are you’re doing it wrong.)
4 Likes
Arthur Jones spoke in hyperbole a lot. Sometimes you have to do so to get attention when you’re like a Ralph Nader in the game. I don’t think he meant to say, my way is good, yours totally sucks.
Just because someone works out, or has for a long time, doesn’t mean they know what exactly it is that builds muscle.
For general strength training, HIT is very effective. YMMV For competitive powerlifters, maybe not. How many powerlifters have tried it?
I think a shitload of things have been tried in powerlifting. If you look at all the training methodologies out there that are being employed, you would know that one can safely assume that HIT is something that’s been tried by plenty of athletes. Because they have tried EVERYTHING. I’m not sure why you think it would work though. Powerlifting is about hitting 1 rep maxes on 3 barbell lifts. how would training HIT style be particularly effective for that? There are probably ASPECTS of HIT theory that can be employed. But trust me man, plenty of elite powerlifters have gotten to where they are by thinking outside of the box, and I don’t know of any training like you would suggest. as eyedentist suggested, most strength training athletes at least give it a shot at some time in their lifting career.
1 Like
Outside the box thinking = not doing any warmups and starting with a slow rep at 85% of 1RM.
Do you believe that there can be new techniques and technologies for training muscle? Should everything around us advance, but strength training stay the same?
I’m fascinated with powerlifting, but not everyone can follow in Eddie Hall’s footsteps.
To clarify, this is HIT rather than HIIT.
Oh…my bad lol
High Intensity Training (HIT) is different than High Intensity Interval Training.(HIIT) It can easily confuse people. Perhaps it should be called High Intensity Resistance Training. It’s basically resistance training to near muscle failure. Minimal sets, slow reps HIIT is like sprinting, cooling, sprinting.
Perhaps you already know the difference, and just making typos
There certainly can be new techniques for building muscle. The efficacy of such new techniques is generally best demonstrated by someone actually achieving something of more using the new technique.
As you have not accomplished anything worth emulating yet, I don’t know why you believe your opinions will carry sufficient weight to convince anyone to train your way.
Once someone has adopted your new approach and done something (won a contest, set a record, etc) perhaps we’ll see a little more merit.
4 Likes