VOLUME: By Fred Hutchinson

Bigger Stronger Leaner Ellington Darden HIT Coaching
104

I think we need to be careful not to attempt to rewrite history.

We know what Dr. Darden, Mentzer, and Jones wrote. I have the books and articles here and can quote until the cows come home. But, that is not necessary because those of us in this for a while know what was printed.

It’s okay to say they were wrong, or that there is a new direction and approach now. When new data and information presents itself, you go by the evidence.

A lot of us moved away from failure years ago from our own experiences.

But let’s be transparent with each other and not pretend that training to failure wasn’t the cornerstone of HIT.

5 Likes
105

I’m referring to what Mike Mentzer and I discussed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I know his personal training – at least what I saw – took another direction after he retired. We didn’t discuss training much in the later years. Our conversations were more about philosophy.

106

I’m not rewriting anything. We have said we were wrong. That’s the easy part.

I’m just reporting my personal experiences – what I heard and saw.

I know what’s in the HIT books and the presentations at Nautilus seminars. I’m also aware of failure being pushed hard by most HIT teachers. And I have, at times, pushed people too hard as well.

I’ve never denied any of that.

Please describe the details on how to end a HIT set properly, according to your understanding of history.

107

With regulars reps (performing what is generally considered proper form in a given set), failure occurs when you can no longer continue the positive movement of the exercise despite your greatest effort. That is the where are you exerting ‘100% intensity of effort’ as it was referred to. The muscle would be completely fatigued at that particular point and lifting phase. Often times, this would take place in a ‘sticking point’ of the exercise with free weights, such as the bottom part of a barbell curl or chest press. That would be the accepted way to end the “vanilla HIT set” unless one is adding “tactics” such as cheat reps, strip sets, rest/pause, supersets, etc.

108

Are you saying you must always attempt a rep that you ultimately can’t complete, ending in a 100-percent intra-range isometric contraction?

109

Failure discussions typically become pedantic and dissuade outsiders from trying HIT.

Getting new lifters involved in high-intensity taining is critical for its further development. I believe a discussion about the importance of form would be far more interesting and beneficial for them. The high-intensity explosion of the 1980s was exciting. Maybe we can rekindle a tiny bit of that.

So how do you define old-school HIT form?

110

Re this, I come to think of an online lecture by Drew Baye where he stated “when you are unable to complete another rep - with a gun held at your head” or something similar. :sweat_smile:

In my opinion, whether this is right or wrong depends on the context. If you only excercise only once or twice weekly - I see no wrong in TRYING to reach this kind of set failure. It appearantly worked well for me - but maybe I never entirely managed to reach failure?

Another point is the different techniques to raise intensity in short term specialization. I see no wrong with them either, as I happen to like them.

More volume seems to be all the rage again, but I am not that convinced it works for me. More volume means lower intensity (or reps in reserve) - which makes it too easy to become excessive in volume. Also the workouts will be longer.

I don’t know - maybe the Surge challenge routine is the perfect hybrid?

111

These types of statements get people off track, causing them to obsess with failure and neglect the other high-intensity principles. It’s a destructive practice that I’ve seen for decades.

My formative years with Nautilus and HIT were from 1977 to 1988. I consider Jones, Darden, and the Mentzers my mentors. Like I’ve said (and some here apparently can’t accept it), the years I spent with Jones, Darden, and the Mentzers – pre-1990 – they never spoke like this to ME or were obsessed with failure. They were very focused, however, on effort intensity and form.

Original failure is a misnomer and an incomplete concept needing further development and subordinated to EFORT INTENSITY and FORM.

Arthur Jones’s Next Big Thing: MedX

After Arthur Jones sold Nautilus, he formed a Medical Exercise company called MedX, which developed and marketed highly specialized (and costly) rehabilitation machines. The first two released were for the testing and strengthening the lumbar and cervical areas of the spine.

Arthur Jones Kept His Focus on Exercise

I became a MedX distributor in the early 1990s. Arthur and I rarely discussed business. Most of our conversations were about machine design, function, and training. Arthur was so concerned about the proper application of exercise that he funded a certification course conducted at the University of Florida (Gainesville). It was a week-long curriculum for health professionals to learn how to operate and apply MedX machines.

Arthur’s Mounting Frustrations

Through my tenure as a Medx distributor, Arthur was increasingly agitated at the sheer ignorance about effective training. He used to say, “PhDs (as a group) are educated above their level of intelligence.”

A Surprise Compliment

Arthur was conducting a MedX seminar on his Ocala property in the Ballroom. Medical professionals and fitness enthusiasts were attending; some were prospective buyers. In the middle of one of his lectures, Arthur remarked:

“There are only six people who understand exercise, and one is in this room.”

Wow! I wasn’t expecting this – something new from Arthur – and I couldn’t wait to hear who it was. I began looking around the room to see if I could guess, then I heard Arthur say,

“It’s Tim Patterson.”

It took a few seconds to realize that Arthur said my name. After it sank in, I felt honored and a little disappointed that it wasn’t someone else I could learn from. I also thought it was kind of pitiful that there were so few people Arthur trusted to help him get out his message about proper exercise.

I never asked him to tell me who the other five were because I already knew the likely answer: Arthur, sensing I was full of pride, would’ve listed four purposefully underwhelming names ending with his bulldog Butch as number five, making sure I knew that, “Tim Patterson is dead last at number six.”

And that would’ve been the ultimate Arthur Jones compliment (if you know what I mean).

I believe I owe Arthur Jones a lot. And I want to do whatever I can to help others understand what he taught me about training.

In other words, I want to get HIS message out as well as all the new things we’ve learned.

3 Likes
112

Thank you @Tim_Patterson for your insightful responses! You share great stories that reminds me not just a little of Dr Darden (meant as a compliment).

In order to further this discussion more proactively: In your prognostic opinion - What do you consider the future in regards of HIT?

1 Like
113

That is basically what I had read in all of the HIT books.

However, I have not trained like that in years! Let alone recommend it to anyone today. That is one reason (not the only) HIT never took off - at least to anything approaching mainstream. If one is training that brutally and is natural the trainee will have to limit the volume and frequency to almost ridiculously low levels or something like consolidation training. This is why Mentzer’s Heavy Duty I and II routines were so brief. That is the only way to make it work training to failure 100% of the time. But these are not ideal ways for strength or size…or anything else really. It was based on something more theoretical than scientific.

2 Likes
114

Thanks for the compliment, @pettersson.

1 Like
115

The future of HIT is in the hands of its followers. What do they want it to become?

All effective weight-training systems should advance over time, but HIT has gone the opposite direction. Its current core principles have been abbreviated down to a paragraph with no universally recognized governing body. The lack of fully illustrated development causes misunderstanding, confusion, and disagreement. It’s polarizing and destructive.

So, Is High-Intensity Training (HIT) too polarizing and stigmatized to change effectively?

Are most HIT followers interested in moving on to HIT-2?

Do the HITters who no longer go to failure still consider themselves doing HIT?

Is it best to leave HIT alone and let it survive or die on its own?

For High-Intensity Training to begin growing again or be viable long-term, it needs to have a well-developed set of principles based on an overarching philosophical treatise.

Doing that is a lot of work and requires the cooperation of an entire community. I’m not sure it’s worth it.

I’ve never identified as a HIT follower. It never really crossed my mind. And I can’t ever remember Arthur Jones using that term with me. We just discussed effective exercise and what that meant without needing to brand it.

So, over the decades, T Nation/Biotest has been pouring resources into the continuous development of the most efficient and effective exercise for building muscle.

Maybe it’s time to publish a new philosophical framework and give it a name.

3 Likes
116

Interesting discussion.

I think part of the issue is that some people incorporated certain “HIT” principles into their business model and marketing message. It became part of their branding.

I recall some heated discussions on Darden’s old forum between Renex proponents and other participants, which brought me to this conclusion. They were really selling a turn-key business model that would give you a nice income if you did things exactly the way they said (or so they claimed).

I don’t think this is unique to HIT. Think about the importance that the “low bar back squat”, and “sets of five” have for the Starting Strength community.

1 Like
117

I remember all too well the Renex conversations and debates on the old forum. I also recall being told no one is doing “exercise” unless they are doing Renex. That comment was such a gem! Of course, it was their specific definition requiring their machines but I recall Jones writing about his definition of exercise many years back.

118

Going forward, I would not use the term HIT or High Intensity Training. I would dis-abandon it. Retire it. Put it to rest if focusing on a new framework. Time to move on from it.

HIT does and always will have certain connotations and for those who never heard the term before will do a Google and pull up its past.

1 Like
119

From everything that was written on the subject, I found out that HIT is not what I always thought about. The information about HIT on the Internet is obviously transmitted incorrectly and is misleading.

Maybe I didn’t understand either, but HIT has always been associated with a set to a total and brutal failure. But this was clearly not the case.

120

You understood just fine, HIT has always been about going to failure, it’s the one thing in common with all the versions of it out there. From Mentzer to Jones to Superslow, etc., the one thing that always was included in all those, was going to failure,… actual failure. You can even read Darden talking about it in an article right here on T-Nation.

Darden: Jones initially recommended as many as 16 exercises, each performed one set to failure, three times per week. Mentzer went the other extreme: consolidated routines, some of which required only 3 or 4 exercises to failure. …My New HIT routines apply between 7 and 12 exercises per routines, one set to failure, twice a week. …Going to “momentary muscular failure” is the guideline…

T-Nation: HIT is also known for stressing good form as in “train to failure but use good form.” However, in your book you describe a set of HIT barbell curls with “loose form” and cheating the last few reps up. I’m confused.

Darden: Good form involves the application of many fine points around the performance of each exercise. Again, this requires appropriate teaching techniques and time.

Jones figured that most bodybuilders, if they knew anything at all, knew the difference between strict and cheating repetitions on the barbell curl. Thus, he frequently used the curl to demonstrate his point of “outright hard work.” I saw him cause many bodybuilders in the 1970s to become nauseated from one set of curls, progressing from very strict form to a looser style–but always carried to failure.

That’s why I begin Chapter 1 with this dynamic description of barbell curls the Arthur Jones way. Later, I point out that cheating repetitions must be incorporated responsibly. You should use them only occasionally, and only in a controlled manner.

I for sure think the new direction Darden is taking is very good, I found that out in myself a very long time ago, a bit more work without hitting failure caused more stimulation AND better recovery.

2 Likes
121

How to interpret this: more volume, more frequency or both.

122

Like Darden is using now, instead of a set to failure a bit more ‘volume’ so to speak (time or bouts with the load since people always assume volume = total sets).

For ‘me’ I found things like non failure rest pause, or non failure drop sets to work very well. Less CNS drain but more muscle work and fatigue, spending a longer time with the muscle ‘inroaded’ instead of a short time.

1 Like
123

All of it’s wrong and all of it’s right. Look at the amazing physiques built on though the past 50 years and the variety of ways people have done it. Many of these have been built on ideas that are almost completely opposite and yet gains were somehow still made.

Go read articles on this site from 20 years ago and some of the ones today say stuff very opposite. And yet we had jacked people in 2000 and we have jacked people today. You can even see authors who are writing articles with different ideas than when they were younger and yet they created great physiques and athletes back then as well as today.

Edit: I should add that I was talking more about the volume, frequency, failure part and less the HIT/HD part as I’ve never really followed either of those closely nor know enough about their history to comment on them specifically.

1 Like