T Nation

Negativity

I was just wondering why certain people are so negative toward certain points. I wont name any names but this persons initials are hetyey 225. You are always against anything except Heavy Duty. Why couldnt some things other than Heavy Dooty have effects on muscle growth? When i sprint i get very sore in my hamstrings? Could this not cause extra growth? I do a lot of “athletic type” movements. Ya know what? It has resulted in more growth. Wow. You need to be a little more open minded.

heytey must be one of those HIT/asshole types Shugart was talking about in reader mail this week.

I agree with you Goldberg, it seems like alot of the HIT/Mentzer followers all seem to accept Mentzer’s belief of “there’s only one right way to do anything” and run with it. It’s funny how most HIT trainees seem to follow Mike in a similar accord: they all become convinced that they are right and everyone else is a fool and most become “intellectualized”: the same thing that happens to anyone else who follows a zealot. Interesting points you made, Goldberg.

I visit several different lifting boards and, without fail, the biggest assholes are HIT disciples. Now I am NOT saying that all are like that, some are very nice and respectful of other people’s opinions, but no one else seems to care enough about other people’s workouts as to go so far to insult them for not training a certain way as some HIT trainers. Which is probably due to the fact they’re just following in Mentzer’s footsteps. I mean, how often did you read a Mentzer article that didn’t include some sort of cheap shot at individuals who didn’t follow his program. When the leader sets himself up as some sort of infallible demagogue, its no wonder some of his followers end up doing the same.

I agree.
I just responded to that thread about what our current splits are and he intinuated that any of us who don’t do Heavy Duty must be on drugs.

But he can “claim” to go from 258 to 227lbs in 6 weeks and “gain” 25-30 lbs of muscle yet he is natural.The only people I know of who could even come close to that drugs or not are people who took massive layoffs and were like that before ie “muscle memory”. Shit even I went from 170lbs-210lbs in 6 months in 1994 after an almost 4 year layoff and hardly eating anything. The only time I have been below 180 since age 13 was when I was literally eating hardly anything and working a very physical job.But to gain that off the bat naturally, sorry bullshit, heavy duty, volume trainig, drugs or no drugs. Muscle memory wise maybe but any other way like I said bullshit!

Of course this is the internet where we are all 6'8 and 400lbs at 5% bodyfat and have 15inch penises.

Here’s where they are coming from - When I first started out I read all of the Arthur Jones/Ellington Darden stuff because it was so much different than M&F and offered another perspective. The problem, besides the fact that after a short period of time I was getting nowhere, is that the material is SO ONE-SIDED that you are absolutely compelled to follow the programs. I was almost scared shitless to lift more than twice per week. I trained my ass to failure so fucking hard I felt like I was going to pass out after every set. I often wondered how come everyone was so much bigger than me while I was lifting harder than them. I wasn’t using any supplements because those were taboo and all you needed was food, most importantly carbohydrates. But anyway I eventually got my act together. Trust me though, if you’re a relative newbie and pick up one of those books (I had at least 1/2 dozen of them), you will become “brainwashed” to some extent. At least the Arthur Jones material often allowed 12-15 sets in a workout. HIT was berserk - the stuff I saw in Muscular Development advocated 3-5 sets in a workout. I think that over time my neuromuscular function and muscle fiber recruitment have gotten pretty good, but I just can’t get enough out of so little work. I think what happens sometimes is that a beginner, in searching for a lifting regimen, will give HIT a try and you know what…they gain muscle/strength. But you can put on muscle on any program or diet when you’re young and starting out.

Anyway, I'm getting completely off topic but just keep in mind that the HIT/Jones programs and materials are SO persuasive and remarkably convincing that you too might feel totally compelled to drop al other protocols for them.

Do any of you know anybody who trains using HIT? Are the really all assholes? Are you not being negative towards HIT? I think people should keep in mind that HIT is essentially a training philosophy, not a routine. It basicly states that the best exercise is as intense and brief as possible, and as infrequent as it needs to be. Different HIT routines are all over the place in volume and frequency, but the good ones are hard, brief, safe, and progressive. Take a look at your own progress, how much of your life and money you spend on training and supplements, how often you get hurt and tell me if you think what you do is really worth it.

Take a look at a popular HIT internet site and their take on Mike Mentzer’s death. Talk about negative. Don’t they have anything better to do?

I thought that was funny about finding someone who did HIT and wasn’t an asshole. I personally trained that way for a couple of years, but only after going to another HIT site, and seeing that Mentzer’s recommendations were not finite, did I begin to really learn what my body could tolerate. Nowadays, I train using subfailure stuff that I’ve seen from bryan haycock and pavel tsatsouline. I am actually stronger now than when I was at my “prime” with HIT.

I tend to read a HIT site as well as t-mag, and some of them can offer practical advice in making the most of your training, but what you have to remember about HIT is it is not only 1 set to failure stuff it encompasses a wide range of views with the general theme being low volume and high effort (I prefer the scientific view point on defining intensity) - it has just become viewed as single set training due to heavy duty because mentzer was the most famous advocate of HIT derivative type training and this does not encompass all views of HIT training -if you guys read alot of what ian king says it is similiar to what some HITters advocate i.e intensity/effort is more important than volume and much more than twelve or so sets per work out is probably overtraining for a natural athlete, what should be done by most of us bodybuilders and lifters is to look at the similiarites between varies training theories and not the differences because these are the things which are the more probable truths about training if both sides can agree.

gee, I did not know I was so important! Its 3am I just got home, chillll I’ll resp. later

British Lifter, very well-stated. HIT encompasses a variety of training approaches and not only the “one set to failure” method. The traditional “5x5” training method first popularized by Reg Park is considered by some to be an example of HIT training. I am not a HIT disciple. I do believe in using compound movements, heavy weights and training hard. Ian King’s philosophy of training has a lot of merit, there is quite a bit that I agree with and some things I don’t.

My main theory is try a program for a while and if it doesn’t work for you drop it. In the grand scheme of things, if you plan on training for a lifetime this is not a wasted period of time but a mere blip.

Hetyey 225 - Don’t get your panties in a wad. I don’t think too many people think much about you at all. I just passed you off as an immature zealot with a bad attitude, so I don’t pay much attention to your diatribe. Only a pompous fool would take pride in this thread, so for your sake, don’t play into it.

Lack of open-mindedness is a problem for many people who follow many ideas, HIT or otherwise. I think many people tend to think of Mentzer as the way HIT is because he was so vocal and noticable. A lot of the routines followed by people who are anti-HIT zealots could easily be classified as HIT, and a lot of the routines of HIT zealots could be excluded from the HIT domain. The best mass gaining results I’ve ever had were using HIT, not as a beginner, not after a high-volume routine, and not for a short period of time. Some of the best fat-loss results I had were while using a HIT routine (but of slightly greater volume). It all came down to my diet. None of the routines I employed were Heavy Duty style routines, but were HIT nonetheless. I say, if it works, who gives a shit what it’s called?

OK, I am not usualy rude or nasty (I can be A little testy when people are rude to me) and I don’t think I have been rude or nasty to any of the people on this thread but gee, some of you guys are slamming me personaly and not only have you never met or even spoke with me you don’t even know my ALL my feelings on HIT! a couple of responses: BT you said when you trained HIT " I felt like I was going to pass out after every set" then later you said that " but I can’t get enough out of such little work" huh? either HIT was too hard on your recovery or it did not cause enough inroads into your recovery, decide which argument you want to use. I am also not a newbie, I have been working out on and off since I was 15 (just came off a layoff of about 3yrs. on may 5th) and I’m 31 now. I have trained people on and off since I was 17 ( it was always as a favor, although I did charge). I have tried just about every type of workout there is at one time or another.and joe blow I’M IMMATURE ? did you read YOUR post?. I am NOT a HIT hard ass, I DO think volume has its place (in athletes, for beginers, most teenagers) I just don’t see how volume is the most effective way to stimulate growth.goldberg, I NEVER slam someone for “doing athletic things” I NEVER said DON’T sprint, if you enjoy it, do it.I just said it is NOT the MOST effective way to grow muscle.can you? maybe some, but you would stimulate more growth w/ a set of 20 rep squats w/heavy wts.I believe in greater volume for some people under some conditions, I just don’t think its most effective for adults.

I find all HIT people that post on a forum talk about how they gained over 80 pounds of muscle doing HIT. They will also tell you how for years they never gained a single pound from doing any other type of workout.

Okay, I’m tired of being generalized into something I’m not, just because of the type of workout I do. Yes, I’ve used a HIT type workout for the last two plus years, after trying a “one body part per day” routine. It’s evolved over that time. Basically I do two full body abbreviated workouts a week, with a third peripheral thrown in to help some lagging parts. Up to now, I’ve gained about 55 lbs (over the course of those 2+ years). Would some other routine have given the same results? Maybe, but I probably wouldn’t have stuck to it. I gravitated to HIT type training due to the time commitment. HIT training fit into my life. I had been basically an endurance junkie for years (triathlon, cycling), but a business and family obligations made putting long hours into training – whether endurance or weights – just no longer possible. I use HIT because it works for me, fits into my life, and is something I can stick to. Yes, I love to lift, and I would do more of it if I could. Am I some kind of zealot? I don’t think so. I don’t preach Mentzer or Leistner or Brzycki (sp?) to any one. If you’re interested in my routine, check out the “What’s your routine” thread. So can we lay off it?

I also find that when heavy duty people talk about other types of training they only talk about the 2.5 hour workouts in the bb mags. It just shows their inexperience and lack of knowledge.

"Gmm: Nowadays, I train using subfailure stuff that I’ve seen from bryan haycock and pavel tsatsouline. I am actually stronger now than when I was at my “prime” with HIT. "

[Bryan Haycock] The idea of NOT training to neurological failure is an extremely difficult principle to accept. It is counter intuitive. I think my friend Kevin uses the most appropriate term, "coaxing". HST, which applies the principle of training with "some" submaximal poundages, "coaxes" both hypertrophy and strength in a way that is physiologically sound, although it may stand in the face of traditional training dogma.

Theoretically, HIT probably is very good for stimulating hypertrophy. But, for improving performance, training to failure is idiotic, as it trains your body to fail. So any of you teenage athletes reading this thread, keep in mind that the issue of HIT’s utility is really about whether it induces hypertrophy; if improved athletic performance is your goal,read all of Coach Davies’ articles on this site.