I am reading his book that you can buy on T-Nation. He seems to just be rehashing Arthur Jones old books, and not really giving alot of solid advice. His book is entertaining but its seems like bull shit because he doesn't back up much of what he says only states Arthur Jones said it so it must be right.
He seems like the Phd's on the muscular technology's advertisements that you know are just getting a paycheck. Did anyone use the new HIT, or new school bodybuilding for old school results with good results and should I be giving this guy much more credit?
because I've tried Mike Mentzer's heavy Duty before and it seemed coaching was required to really be doing it right. Otherwise I was just wasting my time in the gym. I'm not so much interested in the progrram as the debate, science and history behind the subject of HIT vs HVT and what causes hypertrophey.
just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean everything they say is right. Though they deserve a ton of respect, and most things they say or suggest have merit, unless its driven by money. I feel HIT needs a coach regardless of knowing the exercises for the first few times just so you truly know how far to push yourself, or if you could edit some form problems etc. Your right I am making this a jumbled mess Bricknyce. the questions are as follows 1. Have you read the book, did you like it?
Does Dr. Darden present a good view and a good program. Or is he like Arthur a business man following a good business model Arthur created. Selling a new exercise program that is entitled the only right way. As Dr.Squat called it in an article a religion. Which he has a good point in both Mike Mentzers Heavy Duty and Dr. Darden's book the author's present the users of HIT and prophets and men ahead of their time, great philosphers that were brought down by the man (Joe Weider).
If you've tried the program and used it correctly(any type of HIT) was it truly a re-awakening, a realization it is the best and oly way to reach your potential. Or you had gains likely from your muscle fiber make up, and that your body wasn't adapted to it, but then it quickly grew stale.
4.Lastly which a question I didn't bring up in the original post, doesn't HIT seem to be dated. Chad Waterbury's programs based on explosivness have helped alot in sports. While HIT focuses alot on very slow repetitions and very controlled movements. Which seems wrong because in basic barbell training the author describes that training explosivley creates a powerful man. that lifting at a fast speed results in you being strong at every speed below that level. So if you were to train slow, you would only be strong under that circumstance and not any other. Which is what seperates a strong man froma a powerful man. Perhaps an experciend athlete or lifter could give their opinions on any of these subjects. So I better understand any of these matters and can translate them to my own training.
Darden's a good guy. A little set in his ways, but smart, honest and open to discussion. The same can't be said for most of the dingbats who post on his site-forums though - and definitely not for the couple of "plants" he has on T-Nation.
I'm not a purist, but HIT definitely works and most coaches are just antagonistic toward it because it indicts their own methods.
HIT does not require a coach. It requires intelligence, discipline, and a set of balls large enough to push yourself through some very uncomfortable workouts. If you aren't disciplined enough to move the weight slowly, avoid acceleration at the turnaround and push yourself to failure, then don't bother trying HIT.
Darden's stuff is GREAT although his recent books seem to be geared more toward strength training novices than experienced bodybuilders. He does talk about Jones a lot and I understand why some people find it annoying. Jones was a truly unique individual, a "T-man" in every sense of the term, and he developed his following for a reason. The dude was fucking hardcore.
HIT is not really a radical training system. Fundamentally you just lift weights to produce micro-tears in your muscle fibers like you do with any other method. It's mostly a different way of thinking about training and organizing your life. A lot of athletes organize their lives around training in the hopes of achieving goals that are undrealistic and/or poorly defined.
Some people even develop a psychological dependency on training. HIT says that you can get very close to your genetic potential by spending less than an hour a week in the weight room and that you would be far better off organizing your life around work/school/family rather than workouts. It also demands that you be realistic about your genetic potential and not seek to devote your life to developing slabs of muscle that you don't have the genetic capacity to support.
Spend less time in the gym and more time at work and derive your self-esteem from accomplishment in the arena where you have the most ability to succeed, rather than identifying solely with your physicality. It is not a call to complaceny or mediocrity in any way. Indeed, seek to become as big and strong as you can. Just don't make training an end in itself in an attempt to achieve the impossible.
If I had understood this 10 years ago, I could have saved myself a FUCK of a lot of trouble, and been a hell of a lot better off today as a result.
I think if you are looking to a training program for balance in your life, then you have larger issues than simply lifting too much. In effect, that is what you are describing of HIT, as if it teaches you to balance your life.
Gee, yet you don't see why some respond that many of you act as if this is a religion?
People all over the country head to church on Sunday in order to find balance and harmony in their lives.
Some people meditate.
However, what someone looking to succeed should not do is hope to find harmony for life in a weight lifting regimen.
To be the best at anything takes unbalanced focus from time to time. That goes for an education, a career and even starting a family. If you are the type who lacks the ability to do this at times without losing yourself, then yes, perhaps you need to find the answer outside of the gym.
Personally, lifting one hour a week would have hindered my progress.
I wish I hadn't posted that last one because I should have anticipated that people would take it as complacency toward bodybuilding. To be clear, I favor HIT because I believe it's the best result-producing system, not because I want to spend less time training. Given the choice, I would rather spend more time training for better results than less time training for mediocre results.
And I've never been one of the evangelistic types, so don't put me in that category. I could shit up every thread in the bodybuilding forum telling people to train HIT, but I don't because I know you guys don't want to hear it.