What Do You Think Of HIT?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
this isn’t correct. total work volume is a stimulus for muscle growth, not simply fatigue.
[/quote]

No-one has ever determined the ‘stimulus’ for muscle growth. You’re full of shit.

Greater acceleration produces more initial tension, but the resulting momentum also produces a greater decrease in tension throughout the repetition. and, although it’s beside the point, there is no such thing as muscle “contraction speed”.

You’re an idiot. In the history of exercise science nobody has ever demonstrated that “simple activation of the fibers” is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. Frankly, that’s the most fantastically retarded thing I’ve ever heard. If all you have to is active fibers to make them grow, why use weights at all? you don’t need resistance to produce activation of the muscle fibers!

since it’s clear that you don’t have even the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, maybe you should quit talking shit in your zeal to discredit

22

I also have a question. Does anyone know of a top level strength competitor who uses HIT for the majority of his training? I’m not talking about football or other team sports where there are many other aspects to the game. I’m talking about OL, PL, Strongman, Highland Games, etc.

Thanks.

23

Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?

24

[quote]belligerent wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
this isn’t correct. total work volume is a stimulus for muscle growth, not simply fatigue.

No-one has ever determined the ‘stimulus’ for muscle growth. You’re full of shit.[/quote]

I’d highly suggest to spend some time on Pubmed looking up pathways related to mechanical and stretch-activated signaling of hypertrophy, as well as Akt-mTOR and gene expression related to that signaling, if you’re so sure of this.

[quote]speed does NOT remove tension from muscles. quite the opposite, actually. the faster the contraction, the more motor units get activated.

Greater acceleration produces more initial tension, but the resulting momentum also produces a greater decrease in tension throughout the repetition. and, although it’s beside the point, there is no such thing as muscle “contraction speed”.[/quote]

And since that peak tension is all that’s really relevant, you’ve made no counter argument.

[quote]this is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy: simple activation of the fibres.

You’re an idiot. In the history of exercise science nobody has ever demonstrated that “simple activation of the fibers” is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. Frankly, that’s the most fantastically retarded thing I’ve ever heard. If all you have to is active fibers to make them grow, why use weights at all? you don’t need resistance to produce activation of the muscle fibers!

since it’s clear that you don’t have even the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, maybe you should quit talking shit in your zeal to discredit
[/quote]

See above. His example was a bit narrow, but in practice he’s right. There’s nothing magical about training to failure. I’d suggest checking the references I indicated above. Mechanical overload and sufficient volume thereof is the stimulus for hypertrophy.

25

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?[/quote]

It is certainly clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure, and I have never said that training to failure is necessary. I’m not taking sides in the HIT debate. However, some of the arguments that people use to discredit the method are ridiculous. It’s laughable how the people on this site embrace millions of different programs described in the articles here, but they throw a fit whenever someone recommends failure training. It’s nothing more than a programmed response to oppose HIT

26

[quote]belligerent wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?

It is certainly clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure, and I have never said that training to failure is necessary. I’m not taking sides in the HIT debate. However, some of the arguments that people use to discredit the method are ridiculous. It’s laughable how the people on this site embrace millions of different programs described in the articles here, but they throw a fit whenever someone recommends failure training. It’s nothing more than a programmed response to oppose HIT[/quote]

Yeah. I agree. I just wasn’t clear what you were talking about.

27

The question really is, what does HIT do that can’t be achieved with less pain and stress on your body? Unless you are masochistic, I don’t see the point.

28

[quote]BCpowder wrote:
By Pete Sisco:

"The fact is, outside of a gym, there is virtually no human activity that involves going to failure.[/quote]

That is WRONG. In nature it happens all the time, both to temporary failure and complete failure (resulting in collapse). Most animals back off at temporary failure.

If you have trouble imaging this then take a look at monkeys in the trees, lions chasing prey (and the prey), and human hunter gatherers.

For that matter, look at ordinary people carrying the groceries around, working in the garden etc… I see people going to failure often.

That does NOT mean that it is the best way to train, however, as shown time and time again from people’s experience.

If anything, the gym is the only place people deliberately go close to failure, without failure, and progressively deliberately overload without failure.

29

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Not to take sides in HIT debate but that Pete Sisco bit is the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard. I don’t even know where to start other than by saying that he is a fucking moron.

[/quote]
hehehe… . yeah… . you cant use the words of a guy who says you only need to HOLD weights to get massive and strong. …

30

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?[/quote]

It doesn’t seem like some people know it (generally due to lack of self-researching), but Darden’s HIT includes NTF (Not-To-Failure) sessions. Basically you do the same exercises and weights, but stop 2 reps short of failure instead, and out of 6 HIT workouts in 2 weeks, you’d do NTF in one of them. So even HIT’s most visible spokesperson right know is telling us that it’s not necessary to failure every set, every workout.

I didn’t see any HIT users saying that you MUST train to failure. Some people don’t need failure at all to make gains, good for them. We all respond to those programs differently, so before you knock a program, try it. Perhaps your body will respond better to it than you expected.

31

[quote]belligerent wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?

It is certainly clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure, and I have never said that training to failure is necessary. I’m not taking sides in the HIT debate. However, some of the arguments that people use to discredit the method are ridiculous. It’s laughable how the people on this site embrace millions of different programs described in the articles here, but they throw a fit whenever someone recommends failure training. It’s nothing more than a programmed response to oppose HIT[/quote]

That’s a good point and you took the thought right out of my head. While I am not a HIT advocate myself, I like Darden’s articles on here because they take a radically different approach from everyone else on the site (God forbid). If we just read the same kinds of articles or dogma all the time, we really aren’t going to be better off in the long run. I like to think there is at least one thing I can take away from just about any article on this site. Sometimes it’s a tweak to my own training or maybe it’s even the opposite, where I decide that’s something I never want to do.

Either way, people need to employ a little more critical thinking as opposed to just a knee-jerk reaction on this kind of stuff.

32

And here we go again.

Does HIT work? Yes.

Is it the only way to work out? No.

There are many paths to the same destination. Is Waterbury right all the time meaning we should ignore Thibeaudeau? Or maybe they are both wrong and we should only train Westside. Then again Westside could be crap, and EDT is the way to go.

The best success I have had working out has been HIT, HST, and EDT. Apparently I have the most success with workouts defined with initials.

Is it torturous? Yes, but if that is a bad thing, then why talk about the Tabata method? Anyone ever workout and then just collapse? Tried Meltdown training? Maybe we should throw that out too.

Then I keep hearing this faulty logic about nobody ever going to failure in life ever. Why don’t you ever hear a coach tell his players to go out and give 95%?

There are 2 reasons people do not like HIT. First is that many people work out because they enjoy it. HIT takes out the fun, and makes it a super short event, and many who love lifting do not understand this. Yet it makes more sense to people who consider weight lifting to be as fund as doing taxes. Yes they exist.

The second reason is that few people actually do it right. I am not surprised that not many made Darden’s 3/8 inch increase. Not because it didn’t work, but because they couldn’t get to true total muscular failure, or didn’t work out right. If everyone had a drill sergeant pushing them through the workouts, I guarantee many more would have made it.

33

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
The question really is, what does HIT do that can’t be achieved with less pain and stress on your body? Unless you are masochistic, I don’t see the point.[/quote]

I think that it’s a drastically different approach and can be a plateau-buster in a way other programs are less likely to be. It shocks your body. Especially for someone that is used to training very heavy, doing low-rep, Max Strength type work.

34

I also think HIT is a good program for brand-spanking new beginners. After a brief work-in period of not training to failure. It teaches you how to work and what failure feels like. It teaches them how to recognize what near-failure is and how to get to that point for future programs.

35

A muscle will grow with progressive tension overload and an overall increase in tension-time (workload).

You’ll find that everything from HIT to GVT and in between will fit those criterion.

The rest ends up being minutiae to be fought over on Internet message boards.

37

[quote]The Mage wrote:
And here we go again.

Does HIT work? Yes.

Is it the only way to work out? No.

There are many paths to the same destination. Is Waterbury right all the time meaning we should ignore Thibeaudeau? Or maybe they are both wrong and we should only train Westside. Then again Westside could be crap, and EDT is the way to go.

The best success I have had working out has been HIT, HST, and EDT. Apparently I have the most success with workouts defined with initials.

Is it torturous? Yes, but if that is a bad thing, then why talk about the Tabata method? Anyone ever workout and then just collapse? Tried Meltdown training? Maybe we should throw that out too.

Then I keep hearing this faulty logic about nobody ever going to failure in life ever. Why don’t you ever hear a coach tell his players to go out and give 95%?

There are 2 reasons people do not like HIT. First is that many people work out because they enjoy it. HIT takes out the fun, and makes it a super short event, and many who love lifting do not understand this. Yet it makes more sense to people who consider weight lifting to be as fund as doing taxes. Yes they exist.

The second reason is that few people actually do it right. I am not surprised that not many made Darden’s 3/8 inch increase. Not because it didn’t work, but because they couldn’t get to true total muscular failure, or didn’t work out right. If everyone had a drill sergeant pushing them through the workouts, I guarantee many more would have made it.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly. Too many people get caught up in theory and guru-worship. The fact is, those who bust their ass in the weightroom consistently are the ones who make the gains, regardless of what approach they are using (to a certain extent, of course). Personally I use a little of everything. As Cosgrove so often quotes, “Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless.”

38

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
For that matter, look at ordinary people carrying the groceries around, working in the garden etc… I see people going to failure often.

I disagree. I see people put their shopping down or ‘take a break’ from their chores because they feel ‘tired’ or they are soft and lazy, NOT because they have pushed themselves to the point where they are incapable of going on. 99% of people in real life go nowhere near failure IMO, they just opt to stop.[/quote]

Yeah. I don’t think many people put down their groceries because their muscles go into momentary failure and are physically incapable of holding them anymore.

39

[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Why is it stupid, belligerent? I think HIT has a place and can be a good program for some. But it IS QUITE clear that people make excellent progress without training to failure?

It doesn’t seem like some people know it (generally due to lack of self-researching), but Darden’s HIT includes NTF (Not-To-Failure) sessions. Basically you do the same exercises and weights, but stop 2 reps short of failure instead, and out of 6 HIT workouts in 2 weeks, you’d do NTF in one of them. So even HIT’s most visible spokesperson right know is telling us that it’s not necessary to failure every set, every workout.

I didn’t see any HIT users saying that you MUST train to failure. Some people don’t need failure at all to make gains, good for them. We all respond to those programs differently, so before you knock a program, try it. Perhaps your body will respond better to it than you expected.[/quote]

That’s intersting. I remember Dr. Darden saying that in his article awhile ago.

40

[quote]belligerent wrote:

No-one has ever determined the ‘stimulus’ for muscle growth. You’re full of shit.
[/quote]

ok. you’re wrong. you seriously need to read a book or two. although not all the factors for hypertrophy are fully understood, we have many good ideas and evidence suggesting certain stimulii for hypertrophy.

i.e. ATP deficiency theory.

ok.