T Nation

Questions about HIT

I just got done reading The New High Intensity Training by Ellington Darden. It was very intresting and I was wondering what other people thought about the HIT program. I am really wondering if anyone has really good results from the program.

Some rave, some rant. Give it a shot and see how it works for you. Personally, I’d dump some of the isolation exercises and add sets of the compounds, but then that wouldn’t be Darden’s program.

Its been said many times many ways merry…I mean, like any other protocol it will work for 4 to 6 weeks then you need to change it up to keep making progress.

Personally I think its lame but whatever. Just dont fall into the trap that its the only way to train.

There was an interview with Dr. Darden some time last year. Check the archives and read the follow up discussion as well.

How long have you been training and what are your goals?

I just finished the beginner’s program (24 weeks) and like it very much. I’m getting the same, if not better, results from other types of training. I’m getting injured and worn out less because I’m training less overall per week. I plan to start the intermediate program after my week off.

About the change-every-6-weeks rule: the routines change every 6 weeks in the book anyway. I do a slight modification. If I have hit a plateau in bench presses for two weeks, that is, I can’t lift more weight or at least do more reps, then starting the next Monday I will do dumbbell bench presses instead. I hate plateaus and won’t wait until the end of the 6th week to make that change, you know? Judging by how he answers similar comments on his site, Ellington Darden doesn’t seem to mind that.

I have been training for 6 yrs. What I have been doing was working each bodypart twice each week. Doing a high volume work(ex:5x8) for one and strength(a combo of 4x6 and 8x3). I this summer I worked on my nutrition and ended up gaining 20lbs. Now I am 5’8" and 220lbs. Most of the muscle I gained was in my back and shoulders. I am looking to add some more size maybe 10 to 20lbs.

Mostly I am wanting to gain more explosive strength for my partner stunting( I am yell leader for Emporia State). Thats a little about my workout routine and goals.

I had some good results with HIT as a beginning lifter. But I don’t think regularly training to failure is the best method. I eventually plateaued in terms of progress. I wasn’t really training for mass at the time, but strength gains eventually slowed and near stopped in the lower body. I also felt like I had stopped recovering properly. But I think it could be a good change for short macro cycles.

[quote]atrain58 wrote:
I have been training for 6 yrs. What I have been doing was working each bodypart twice each week. Doing a high volume work(ex:5x8) for one and strength(a combo of 4x6 and 8x3). I this summer I worked on my nutrition and ended up gaining 20lbs. Now I am 5’8" and 220lbs. Most of the muscle I gained was in my back and shoulders. I am looking to add some more size maybe 10 to 20lbs.

Mostly I am wanting to gain more explosive strength for my partner stunting( I am yell leader for Emporia State). Thats a little about my workout routine and goals.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s a good program for improving explosive strength. For that, you want to be using heavier weights, lower reps, and lifting as fast as possible. HIT is a higher rep range with slow controlled form on the concentrics and eccentrics.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
atrain58 wrote:
I have been training for 6 yrs. What I have been doing was working each bodypart twice each week. Doing a high volume work(ex:5x8) for one and strength(a combo of 4x6 and 8x3). I this summer I worked on my nutrition and ended up gaining 20lbs. Now I am 5’8" and 220lbs. Most of the muscle I gained was in my back and shoulders. I am looking to add some more size maybe 10 to 20lbs.

Mostly I am wanting to gain more explosive strength for my partner stunting( I am yell leader for Emporia State). Thats a little about my workout routine and goals.

I don’t think it’s a good program for improving explosive strength. For that, you want to be using heavier weights, lower reps, and lifting as fast as possible. HIT is a higher rep range with slow controlled form on the concentrics and eccentrics.
[/quote]

Disagree, I have seen personally, and with athletes I train, the effects of HIT with explosive movements.

Second, with heavy weights, by their very nature, you will not be moving fast. The heavier the weight, the slower the movement. Within the HIT context, if you are using a weight of 80% of your 1RM, you really don’t want to be going much faster than 2/4, both out of necessity and safety. If, however, on the concentric movement, you begin the lift controlled and lift as fast as you can and it only takes 1-1.5 seconds, fine, you will build explosive strength. Just control the weight for 4 seconds on the way down.

For explosive movements in sports or other activity, practice the specific sport or activity explosively. The transference is far more “direct” that way.

Tyler

[quote]teedog wrote:
Disagree, I have seen personally, and with athletes I train, the effects of HIT with explosive movements.

Second, with heavy weights, by their very nature, you will not be moving fast. The heavier the weight, the slower the movement. Within the HIT context, if you are using a weight of 80% of your 1RM, you really don’t want to be going much faster than 2/4, both out of necessity and safety. If, however, on the concentric movement, you begin the lift controlled and lift as fast as you can and it only takes 1-1.5 seconds, fine, you will build explosive strength. Just control the weight for 4 seconds on the way down.

For explosive movements in sports or other activity, practice the specific sport or activity explosively. The transference is far more “direct” that way.

Tyler[/quote]

If you’re using maximum acceleration on the concentric, then it’s not HIT. Slow tempo is one of the things HITers insist on, as it is supposedly much safer.

If you’re doing reps until failure with 80%, force production will diminish with each rep closer to failure, which would be detrimental to development of speed. Reps nearing failure will inevitably slow down significantly.

Controling the weight on the eccentric for full 4 sec is unnesseccary for speed-strenght development. On the other hand, training with maximal weights (above 80-85%) can indirectly help as maximal strength is foundational to all other strength qualities.

In conclusion, there are much better approaches than HIT. On this site, Defranco’s WSSB and Thib’s Pendulum for Athletes, for instance; although Thib’s programs are usually higher volume and you’ll probably need to downsize it a bit.

Moving the weight slowly and the weight moving slowly because of how heavy it is are two different things especially if you are attempting to move the heavy weight quickly ie. Copensatory Accelartion Training.

HIT just wont die and I dont think that is because it is so affective. Read what Coach Staley has to say about it on his website as well as the article “Hit by a Hammer” which is by Dr. Fred Hatfield if you can find it.

Louie Simmons also has an article about the problems with HIT. As well as other authors on this site.

If you need the ideas of more people then these indivdiuals then do what you like, no one will convince you.
Fuck HIT.

[quote]slotan wrote:
teedog wrote:
Disagree, I have seen personally, and with athletes I train, the effects of HIT with explosive movements.

Second, with heavy weights, by their very nature, you will not be moving fast. The heavier the weight, the slower the movement. Within the HIT context, if you are using a weight of 80% of your 1RM, you really don’t want to be going much faster than 2/4, both out of necessity and safety. If, however, on the concentric movement, you begin the lift controlled and lift as fast as you can and it only takes 1-1.5 seconds, fine, you will build explosive strength. Just control the weight for 4 seconds on the way down.

For explosive movements in sports or other activity, practice the specific sport or activity explosively. The transference is far more “direct” that way.

Tyler

If you’re using maximum acceleration on the concentric, then it’s not HIT. Slow tempo is one of the things HITers insist on, as it is supposedly much safer.

If you’re doing reps until failure with 80%, force production will diminish with each rep closer to failure, which would be detrimental to development of speed. Reps nearing failure will inevitably slow down significantly.

Controling the weight on the eccentric for full 4 sec is unnesseccary for speed-strenght development. On the other hand, training with maximal weights (above 80-85%) can indirectly help as maximal strength is foundational to all other strength qualities.

In conclusion, there are much better approaches than HIT. On this site, Defranco’s WSSB and Thib’s Pendulum for Athletes, for instance; although Thib’s programs are usually higher volume and you’ll probably need to downsize it a bit.[/quote]

I didn’t say it was. I said, “If, however,…” implying that it is a departure from HIT routine.

I wouldn’t necessarily say there are “better” approaches than HIT, but there are certainly “other” approaches, many of which I have used/continue to use on occasion, just like HIT.

Tyler

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
Moving the weight slowly and the weight moving slowly because of how heavy it is are two different things especially if you are attempting to move the heavy weight quickly ie. Copensatory Accelartion Training.

HIT just wont die and I dont think that is because it is so affective. Read what Coach Staley has to say about it on his website as well as the article “Hit by a Hammer” which is by Dr. Fred Hatfield if you can find it.

Louie Simmons also has an article about the problems with HIT. As well as other authors on this site.

If you need the ideas of more people then these indivdiuals then do what you like, no one will convince you.
Fuck HIT.[/quote]

Your somewhat less than collegial and mature conclusion notwithstanding, I have read these authors, as well as several other authors both pro and con as it relates to HIT. I don’t need convincing. I am a big boy and can think for myself, make my own decisions based on (all) the information available.

Unlike many who will just eat everything they read here (no pun intended), hook, line and sinker, I like to think critically and question the articles that I read. If you look at most of the written work on this site, you will find, and I am sure the authors would concur, that many of the ideas put forth (lifting programs, nutrition) are works in progress. It seems to me, and I am just surmising, that the authors’ question everything, challenge everything and come up with their own programs.

Will one program fit all? Nuh,uh. Is one the best? Don’t think so. Are they effective? Yes. Some more so than others, depending on the individual, and, to some degree, the trainer. HIT works, as do many of the other programs mentioned on this site.

I am not sure why this has to be an argument? No one is challenging democracy or freedom as we know it. If people want to practice HIT style, fine, let them. What is the issue?

Tyler

Sorry bro didnt mean to sound like a dick, nd I was directing the post to the original poster.

I guess its the fact the HIT proponents always seem to talk about it like its the end all be all and its followers defend it like a religion, that annoys me.

So I agree with you about critical thinking. I use it and have studied it, some dont know its a discipline but it is, Logic is not just about what “sounds” right. Not all evidence and assertions are created equal.

Anyone intrested in logic and logical fallacies check out crimes against logic by Jamie Whyte its hillarious and excellent book on seeing through and dealing with logical fallacies…its somewhat more practical then the tomes of logic one might use in a class.

Also I respect the fact that you have had positive experiences with
HIT with clients however, and correct me if I am wrong, you dont have anywhere near the experience in education and training clients that any of the afforementioned men has. THis is not a knock against you I dont have that experience either. So there proffesional oppinions, if well reasoned, hold more weight then mine or yours.

So ultimately I feel HIT should be used sparringly for muscle gain and not at all for athletes. My conclusion comes from flaws in the logic and science of HIT, at least the HIT proposed by Mike Mentzer, as well as the well reasoned explanations based on educaton and experience of people like Coach Staley and Dr. Hatfeild.
Mike just went and made shit up.

So I still say “Fuck HIT” just in a friendlier way, HIT unlike conservitavism does not really piss me off that much! :wink:

Best response ever by Joe DeFranco:

Q: Hi Joe,

I was wondering what you thought about HIT training? What do you think this type of training is good for? Have you ever used it on your athletes?

David

A: Hmmm, what is HIT training good for? Um, let me think about this one. My first response would be… “NOTHING!” But, I don’t want to leave you with such a short answer; let me put more thought into answering your question. Here is my Top 5 list of what I feel HIT training is good for:

Hit training is good for…

  1. Lazy strength coaches who like to sit on their asses while their athletes are training.

  2. Getting injured.

  3. Over-training.

  4. Converting “fast-twitch” athletes into “slow-twitch” athletes.

  5. Nothing. (Did I say that already?)

Catch my drift??

Joe D.

[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
Best response ever by Joe DeFranco:

Q: Hi Joe,

I was wondering what you thought about HIT training? What do you think this type of training is good for? Have you ever used it on your athletes?

David

A: Hmmm, what is HIT training good for? Um, let me think about this one. My first response would be… “NOTHING!” But, I don’t want to leave you with such a short answer; let me put more thought into answering your question. Here is my Top 5 list of what I feel HIT training is good for:

Hit training is good for…

  1. Lazy strength coaches who like to sit on their asses while their athletes are training.

  2. Getting injured.

  3. Over-training.

  4. Converting “fast-twitch” athletes into “slow-twitch” athletes.

  5. Nothing. (Did I say that already?)

Catch my drift??

Joe D. [/quote]

And you know you can trust Joe, one he is a succesfull, knowledgeable, experienced trainer and he is Italian and from NJ which automatically makes him a fucking genius…yes yes its true I am Italian and from NJ but it a true fact…I cant help that… so you cant stop screaming bias now! :wink:

I appologize gents I am on the computer and cant seem to get motivated to start my day, when I can just sit here and post.

[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:

So I agree with you about critical thinking. I use it and have studied it, some dont know its a discipline but it is, Logic is not just about what “sounds” right. Not all evidence and assertions are created equal.

[/quote]

Furthermore, just because a certain HIT theory (as there are quite a few of them) is self-consistent doesn’t mean it has any real-world value. Formally speaking, it means that, given a set of premises and a set of inference rules, you won’t be able to find two or more contradictory statements. Whether the premises are actually true isn’t a matter of logic.

An example of a faulty premise is “you must reach the point of failure to stimulate gains”. But plenty of HIT stuff isn’t even consistent. And many different HIT camps (original Jones/Darden, Heavy Duty, Superslow) often offer opposing information (rep speed, frequency, volume).

And, just to make things clear, when talking about HIT, I don’t mean training to failure or low volume training. I’m critizcizing the system as a whole, as it based largely on anecdotes (like Viator’s training) and false analogies (like strength equals size or slower rep speeds are safer).

[quote]slotan wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:

So I agree with you about critical thinking. I use it and have studied it, some dont know its a discipline but it is, Logic is not just about what “sounds” right. Not all evidence and assertions are created equal.

Furthermore, just because a certain HIT theory (as there are quite a few of them) is self-consistent doesn’t mean it has any real-world value. Formally speaking, it means that, given a set of premises and a set of inference rules, you won’t be able to find two or more contradictory statements. Whether the premises are actually true isn’t a matter of logic.

An example of a faulty premise is “you must reach the point of failure to stimulate gains”. But plenty of HIT stuff isn’t even consistent. And many different HIT camps (original Jones/Darden, Heavy Duty, Superslow) often offer opposing information (rep speed, frequency, volume).

And, just to make things clear, when talking about HIT, I don’t mean training to failure or low volume training. I’m critizcizing the system as a whole, as it based largely on anecdotes (like Viator’s training) and false analogies (like strength equals size or slower rep speeds are safer).
[/quote]

If I understand you correctly your are saying that even if a theory or version of it is consistent throughout and does not contradict itself it may still not be valid becasue one or more of the premises sp.? might be incorrect.

So you may be using sound agrument but with false information. am I hearing you correctly?

[quote]slotan wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:

So I agree with you about critical thinking. I use it and have studied it, some dont know its a discipline but it is, Logic is not just about what “sounds” right. Not all evidence and assertions are created equal.

Furthermore, just because a certain HIT theory (as there are quite a few of them) is self-consistent doesn’t mean it has any real-world value. Formally speaking, it means that, given a set of premises and a set of inference rules, you won’t be able to find two or more contradictory statements. Whether the premises are actually true isn’t a matter of logic.

An example of a faulty premise is “you must reach the point of failure to stimulate gains”. But plenty of HIT stuff isn’t even consistent. And many different HIT camps (original Jones/Darden, Heavy Duty, Superslow) often offer opposing information (rep speed, frequency, volume).

And, just to make things clear, when talking about HIT, I don’t mean training to failure or low volume training. I’m critizcizing the system as a whole, as it based largely on anecdotes (like Viator’s training) and false analogies (like strength equals size or slower rep speeds are safer).
[/quote]

Ithink the premise is that you must make “inroad” to stimulate gains and going to momentary muscular failure accomplishes this. MMF is best achieved through completing 8-12 reps in good form in a slow and controlled fashion. In the context of HIT, you will be able to see progression in both the amount of reps per exercise at a specific weight and, when you can complete 12 reps in good for at that weight, you will see progression by increasing the weight.

Inroad is also accomplished by following many, if not all, of the different routines found on this site. As I am sure I have mentioned somewhere in the past, I utilize this method most for 2 main reasons:
1)Efficiency. Why do in three/five/eight sets what I can accomplish (or come close to accomplishing) in one? At my age (47) and with my time constraints, it works well for me.
2)At my age (47) sometimes your short term memory goes and you can’t remember #2. But I do remember there was a #2 somewhere. Maybe later. (scratching his head, furrowing his brow, then roflhao [“h” = his])
2)

Tyler

Correct me if I am wrong but I think most the success stories in the book are from steroid users.( Casey Viator, Sergio Olivia, Mike metzger…).Can the average person recover fast enough to do three intense full body workouts a week without steroids to get results that are better than other programs that say work each muscle group once or twice a week.