MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Method Difference: HIT vs Volume
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Nwlifter

Just an interesting thought (at least to me), last night thinking about things related to training, I kinda caught on to the general premise difference between HIT and Volume methods.

HIT
Target is maximum activation through high effort. This is believed to be the most productive area. Because of that, if 'more' stimulation is needed, it's done by extending or repeating time in that high effort area.
Example: Rest pause, pre-exhaust, super and trisets (leg press to failure then leg ext, then squat, all in a row).

Volume
Work in general is the target, staving off failure is the goal. if more work is thought to be needed, it's done before failure.
Example: If 3x8 is done, first set is easy, second harder, 3rd set is hardest and failure may occur. If 4 sets are done, 1st easy, 2nd harder, 3rd harder still, then 4th set is where max intensity if felt. So more work is inserted before, where with HIT, more work is inserted AFTER high effort is reached.

Just thought that was interesting to look at it this way.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

I guess it WAS just interesting to me LOL

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

All routines are the same in that they contain intensity, volume, and frequency. It's just the degree to which is applied. Some of Dr. Darden's specialization routines are basically a combination of what you listed in its variation.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Found a Serge Nubret Q&A, failure was NOT avoided.


Q.Serge, did you personally ever go lower than 12 reps per set? And what's your opinion on going to failure?

A. Yes maybe 4 or 5 time a year, just to see where I am. For me going to failure, that is the way to improve your physique, but you must be a very good food eater too, because you burn so much calories.

Same Q&A ..

Q. But how often do you go to failure? every set? or just
the last set for each musclegroup? (with failure i mean when you simply cannot complete a full rep anymore)

A. Every set, but I am able to computerised(?) the weight I want into my mind.

Quite a few of the HVT programs such as 10X10 and Steve Holman's programs combine volume with mmf.


Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Training in a High effort ( or HIT ) manner that necessitates prolonged recovery is contradictory to the adaptive process. Adaptation is a two way affair of adequate stimulus and recuperation and `adequate` is NOT too high an effort that realises recovery beyond that of optimal protein synthesis of 36-48hrs ( that's counterproductive ).
The body has no reason to adapt if the exposure is infrequent.

T.
Open User Options Menu

Gainz

This is interesting to ponder and shall hopefully spark some good discussion.

As an aside, and I hope you don't mind me offering advice, you would do well to detach yourself from that 'emperors.new clothes' incoherent, meaningless babble being directed your way over on HG.

How much horseshit can be typed about a training methodology that basically entails ensuring youre isolating the target muscles and doing 3 or 4 sets per exercise.

Does the main poster boy over there for such a complex load of hogwash look impressive after all anyway?
Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

I'm a volume and frequency guy. I train each body part presently 2- 3x per week for 16 sets a bodypart and don't avoid failure. I just don't chase failure. Failure to me is like muscle soreness. I'm not going to gauge the effectiveness of my workout by how sore I am, but at times I am bound to get sore.
Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

Turpin wrote:
Training in a High effort ( or HIT ) manner that necessitates prolonged recovery is contradictory to the adaptive process. Adaptation is a two way affair of adequate stimulus and recuperation and `adequate` is NOT too high an effort that realises recovery beyond that of optimal protein synthesis of 36-48hrs ( that's counterproductive ).
The body has no reason to adapt if the exposure is infrequent.

T.


Also the body has reason to decrease it's rate of protein synthesis with infrequent training. It also has a stimulus to increase it's rate of protein synthesis if you challenge the 36-48 hour window. I think it is a mistake to assume that muscle protein synthesis is not a trainable trait.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

My thoughts were just a 'step back' analysis of the basic premise between HIT methods vs volume methods.

In a nutshell,
HIT looks to increase stimulation by more work at the failure and beyond level
Volume looks to increase the stimulus by more work before the failure level.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

PTDaniel wrote:
Turpin wrote:
Training in a High effort ( or HIT ) manner that necessitates prolonged recovery is contradictory to the adaptive process. Adaptation is a two way affair of adequate stimulus and recuperation and `adequate` is NOT too high an effort that realises recovery beyond that of optimal protein synthesis of 36-48hrs ( that's counterproductive ).
The body has no reason to adapt if the exposure is infrequent.

T.

Also the body has reason to decrease it's rate of protein synthesis with infrequent training. It also has a stimulus to increase it's rate of protein synthesis if you challenge the 36-48 hour window. I think it is a mistake to assume that muscle protein synthesis is not a trainable trait.


I agree , but thought it was pushing the boundaries with some on here when even posting that infrequent very intense effort is counterproductive LOL.

Many believe that ones recovery cannot be improved in accordance with adaptation , it CAN provided the stimulus does not supersede the requirement necessary to create the adaptive response and that `requirement` is NOT to exert maximal effort requiring extended recovery.

T.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Gainz wrote:
This is interesting to ponder and shall hopefully spark some good discussion.

As an aside, and I hope you don't mind me offering advice, you would do well to detach yourself from that 'emperors.new clothes' incoherent, meaningless babble being directed your way over on HG.

How much horseshit can be typed about a training methodology that basically entails ensuring youre isolating the target muscles and doing 3 or 4 sets per exercise.


Yes, detached on that already, twas an experiment.

Does the main poster boy over there for such a complex load of hogwash look impressive after all anyway? Never seen, but he's said and others confirmed, he did get pretty big and lean. I guess we all have our nitch (mental and physical), that was not mine, but I guess it's some people's.



Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

here is what i find interesting as i am going thru some PT for a pinched nerve in the neck

very light weight, 3 sets of 10...very controlled cadense(2-4 seconds positive and negative) with a 5 second hold on the contraction

i am thinking of incorporating a full body 3x/week routine like this for a few months just to experiment

at 52, don't care about straining myself or muscle size...just to be healthy....which would also help keep me from raising my blood pressure when straining

just a thought
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

You just might end up getting size that way anyway as a bonus. Many have....

I'm almost 52 also, but I still want more size :)

I know a guy on another forum, did similar training to that (6x6), he put almost an inch on his arms and size all over.

hit4me wrote:
here is what i find interesting as i am going thru some PT for a pinched nerve in the neck

very light weight, 3 sets of 10...very controlled cadense(2-4 seconds positive and negative) with a 5 second hold on the contraction

i am thinking of incorporating a full body 3x/week routine like this for a few months just to experiment

at 52, don't care about straining myself or muscle size...just to be healthy....which would also help keep me from raising my blood pressure when straining

just a thought


Open User Options Menu

gdm

NWlifter
Can you elaborate on routine details the guy that gained size with 6x6 ?
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

gdm wrote:
NWlifter
Can you elaborate on routine details the guy that gained size with 6x6 ?


OK, just looked, it was 6x8, here is his post. I won't post his name as I have no way to contact him to see if he minds.

I got some good results with a Steve Davis routine I did (he was trained by Gironda) which is CFT. Two exercises per bodypart, each done for 6x8, done twice per week. Progression was based on reducing rest between sets by 5 sec per week from 30 sec down to 15 sec and then adding 5 lb to the bar and starting at 30 sec again. So I was adding weight every 4 weeks. I got my arms to 17 inches for the first time at a body weight of 94.5kg. My arms started at 15 3/4 inches and I added about 15 lb of body weight overall.

The beauty of this routine was that using lighter weights my joints never felt sore or ached at all and I never felt "trashed" after workouts, but energised. Prior to this I generally used low-volume heavier type of training.

I eventually went back to heavier training, as I wanted a bit of a change and I hadn't lost any of my previous strength. I'm thinking of starting CFT training again after I drop a few more kg's and will probably use the same routine as last time, with maybe some exercise changes.


Open User Options Menu

gdm

Thanks
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
gdm wrote:
NWlifter
Can you elaborate on routine details the guy that gained size with 6x6 ?

OK, just looked, it was 6x8, here is his post. I won't post his name as I have no way to contact him to see if he minds.

I got some good results with a Steve Davis routine I did (he was trained by Gironda) which is CFT. Two exercises per bodypart, each done for 6x8, done twice per week. Progression was based on reducing rest between sets by 5 sec per week from 30 sec down to 15 sec and then adding 5 lb to the bar and starting at 30 sec again. So I was adding weight every 4 weeks. I got my arms to 17 inches for the first time at a body weight of 94.5kg. My arms started at 15 3/4 inches and I added about 15 lb of body weight overall.

The beauty of this routine was that using lighter weights my joints never felt sore or ached at all and I never felt "trashed" after workouts, but energised. Prior to this I generally used low-volume heavier type of training.

I eventually went back to heavier training, as I wanted a bit of a change and I hadn't lost any of my previous strength. I'm thinking of starting CFT training again after I drop a few more kg's and will probably use the same routine as last time, with maybe some exercise changes.




Very much my experience with Gironda style Cumulative fatigue training. Sensible progressive method and it works.

T.


Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Hey T, have you done it 'ala cart', or only along with heavy also? Any in sites on how you did it, or if it, in and of itself, seemed to lead to good gains?


Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
gdm wrote:
NWlifter
Can you elaborate on routine details the guy that gained size with 6x6 ?

OK, just looked, it was 6x8, here is his post. I won't post his name as I have no way to contact him to see if he minds.

I got some good results with a Steve Davis routine I did (he was trained by Gironda) which is CFT. Two exercises per bodypart, each done for 6x8, done twice per week. Progression was based on reducing rest between sets by 5 sec per week from 30 sec down to 15 sec and then adding 5 lb to the bar and starting at 30 sec again. So I was adding weight every 4 weeks. I got my arms to 17 inches for the first time at a body weight of 94.5kg. My arms started at 15 3/4 inches and I added about 15 lb of body weight overall.

The beauty of this routine was that using lighter weights my joints never felt sore or ached at all and I never felt "trashed" after workouts, but energised. Prior to this I generally used low-volume heavier type of training.

I eventually went back to heavier training, as I wanted a bit of a change and I hadn't lost any of my previous strength. I'm thinking of starting CFT training again after I drop a few more kg's and will probably use the same routine as last time, with maybe some exercise changes.




Very much my experience with Gironda style Cumulative fatigue training. Sensible progressive method and it works.

T.




Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Nwlifter wrote:
My thoughts were just a 'step back' analysis of the basic premise between HIT methods vs volume methods.

In a nutshell,
HIT looks to increase stimulation by more work at the failure and beyond level
Volume looks to increase the stimulus by more work before the failure level.


I don't know that it divides that cleanly, because there are different ways to do multiple sets.

If you do sets across, with a fixed rep target, then it tends to work the way you describe - each set gets harder due to fatigue, and eventually you hit failure.

But then there are also drop sets, where you keep going to failure with lighter and lighter loads. This allow a deeper level of fatigue.

The other variable is rest between sets. Doing three sets with 30 to 90 seconds of rest between sets is a lot different than doing 3 sets with 4 to 6 minutes of rest between sets. With short rest periods, your ability to perform subsequent sets falls off rapidly due to accumulating fatigue. In contrast, long rest periods allow for a higher level of performance for each set.

Personally, I've found that multiple sets are most productive for me if I take each set to failure, and rest a relatively long time between sets (at least 3 to 4 minutes). It makes for a long workout, but isn't that stressful because of the long rest periods.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Good point, that would be, to me, true volume then. Multiple sets to failure, each set is an 'entity' unto itself.

In reality, short rest periods between 'sets' are kinda like HIT It's just really one long set that ends in failure, with some short breaks during that long set.

Fatigue increases each rep until failure..
rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rest a bit, rep rep, rep, rep, rest a bit, rep, rep, rep, .... failure

but then you are getting 'more reps in before failure' that way, so I guess back to my definition :)



Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
My thoughts were just a 'step back' analysis of the basic premise between HIT methods vs volume methods.

In a nutshell,
HIT looks to increase stimulation by more work at the failure and beyond level
Volume looks to increase the stimulus by more work before the failure level.

I don't know that it divides that cleanly, because there are different ways to do multiple sets.

If you do sets across, with a fixed rep target, then it tends to work the way you describe - each set gets harder due to fatigue, and eventually you hit failure.

But then there are also drop sets, where you keep going to failure with lighter and lighter loads. This allow a deeper level of fatigue.

The other variable is rest between sets. Doing three sets with 30 to 90 seconds of rest between sets is a lot different than doing 3 sets with 4 to 6 minutes of rest between sets. With short rest periods, your ability to perform subsequent sets falls off rapidly due to accumulating fatigue. In contrast, long rest periods allow for a higher level of performance for each set.

Personally, I've found that multiple sets are most productive for me if I take each set to failure, and rest a relatively long time between sets (at least 3 to 4 minutes). It makes for a long workout, but isn't that stressful because of the long rest periods.


Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
Hey T, have you done it 'ala cart', or only along with heavy also? Any in sites on how you did it, or if it, in and of itself, seemed to lead to good gains?


.............................


Very much my experience with Gironda style Cumulative fatigue training. Sensible progressive method and it works.

T.






I done it exclusively for a period of around 18months - 2 yrs , using not only the 6 x 6 AND 8 x 8 method but also Girondas advocated exercises ( something I have been familiar with throughout my 35yrs training.
TBH the results were very evident , I got more muscular and defined and felt great. This was 2013 a period of time when in my late forties gains were hard to come by , BUT I made great progress and still continue with similar format on my assistance work to-date whilst putting more focus on the multi joint BIG lifts.
I used this 6 x 6 format for a protracted period back in my 20`s too and made great gains then too.

I take an 8 rep maximum weight and perform 6 reps , rest for 15 breaths ( roughly 30 secs ) then repeat . The last few sets are very difficult but not failure.
8 x 8 is similar but using a 10-12 rep max poundage to complete.
It helps to choose the correct exercises in order to ensure completion of the sets / reps ... it would be extremely difficult to take your 8 rep max squat and perform 6 sets x 6 reps with 30 sec between sets , BUT it can be done to very good effect with the roman chair or sissy squat ( as an example )

T.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Turpin wrote:


I done it exclusively for a period of around 18months - 2 yrs , using not only the 6 x 6 AND 8 x 8 method but also Girondas advocated exercises ( something I have been familiar with throughout my 35yrs training.
TBH the results were very evident , I got more muscular and defined and felt great. This was 2013 a period of time when in my late forties gains were hard to come by , BUT I made great progress and still continue with similar format on my assistance work to-date whilst putting more focus on the multi joint BIG lifts.
I used this 6 x 6 format for a protracted period back in my 20`s too and made great gains then too.

I take an 8 rep maximum weight and perform 6 reps , rest for 15 breaths ( roughly 30 secs ) then repeat . The last few sets are very difficult but not failure.
8 x 8 is similar but using a 10-12 rep max poundage to complete.
It helps to choose the correct exercises in order to ensure completion of the sets / reps ... it would be extremely difficult to take your 8 rep max squat and perform 6 sets x 6 reps with 30 sec between sets , BUT it can be done to very good effect with the roman chair or sissy squat ( as an example )

T.


Hey T, cool, thanks for the great info. I've used 6x6 but never stuck with it nearly long enough to 'get into it' and reap some real gains. But your info. really makes me want to move it from the back burner up and give it a try next cycle.

You really stuck with it, that's awesome. And I agree, it's not about CFT working or not, its the exercises used that determine the types of gains. If something grows muscle it grows muscle period.

So one last, probably hard to answer question if I could...

It seems the 'size to strength' ratio is higher on CFT, did you note anything such as, when you progressed X amount in load, you noticed some measureble size increases? The other poster that I C&P'ed his post, noted about 25% strength increase with 6x6 showed some good size gains. (but with heavy low volume it seems we need to increase strength a LOT more to see size gains).

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for answering questions, really appreciate it!



Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Nwlifter wrote:
Turpin wrote:


I done it exclusively for a period of around 18months - 2 yrs , using not only the 6 x 6 AND 8 x 8 method but also Girondas advocated exercises ( something I have been familiar with throughout my 35yrs training.
TBH the results were very evident , I got more muscular and defined and felt great. This was 2013 a period of time when in my late forties gains were hard to come by , BUT I made great progress and still continue with similar format on my assistance work to-date whilst putting more focus on the multi joint BIG lifts.
I used this 6 x 6 format for a protracted period back in my 20`s too and made great gains then too.

I take an 8 rep maximum weight and perform 6 reps , rest for 15 breaths ( roughly 30 secs ) then repeat . The last few sets are very difficult but not failure.
8 x 8 is similar but using a 10-12 rep max poundage to complete.
It helps to choose the correct exercises in order to ensure completion of the sets / reps ... it would be extremely difficult to take your 8 rep max squat and perform 6 sets x 6 reps with 30 sec between sets , BUT it can be done to very good effect with the roman chair or sissy squat ( as an example )

T.


Hey T, cool, thanks for the great info. I've used 6x6 but never stuck with it nearly long enough to 'get into it' and reap some real gains. But your info. really makes me want to move it from the back burner up and give it a try next cycle.

You really stuck with it, that's awesome. And I agree, it's not about CFT working or not, its the exercises used that determine the types of gains. If something grows muscle it grows muscle period.

So one last, probably hard to answer question if I could...

It seems the 'size to strength' ratio is higher on CFT, did you note anything such as, when you progressed X amount in load, you noticed some measureble size increases? The other poster that I C&P'ed his post, noted about 25% strength increase with 6x6 showed some good size gains. (but with heavy low volume it seems we need to increase strength a LOT more to see size gains).

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for answering questions, really appreciate it!





TBH I never sought strength increase when using CFT , I sought to adapt to the respite between sets then decrease the respite further when ease of effort determined ( 15-12 breaths or lower ) this took some months and only on further adaptation to the effort did I seek to raise the resistance and begin at 15 breaths or so again.
For example : Over those 2 yrs I only realised a gain of around 5 kg ( 11 lbs ) on my neck press on the 6 x6 and/or 8 x 8 format but realised considerable change in musculature.
On returning to conventional training on the BIG lifts I felt quite weak and it took some time to get these up again , and in the mean time I maintained some of the CFT exercises as ancillary work to my main lifts. ( Best of both worlds )

T.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Ah ok, cool, so you were targeting more conditioning i guess by just going for more 'density', in effect then, you increased muscle size some and lost some fat, kind of a body recomp more then. OK, that makes sense then. I guess any method can be used in various ways (pure size, symetry, etc.)

Thanks for the answers!

Turpin wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Turpin wrote:


I done it exclusively for a period of around 18months - 2 yrs , using not only the 6 x 6 AND 8 x 8 method but also Girondas advocated exercises ( something I have been familiar with throughout my 35yrs training.
TBH the results were very evident , I got more muscular and defined and felt great. This was 2013 a period of time when in my late forties gains were hard to come by , BUT I made great progress and still continue with similar format on my assistance work to-date whilst putting more focus on the multi joint BIG lifts.
I used this 6 x 6 format for a protracted period back in my 20`s too and made great gains then too.

I take an 8 rep maximum weight and perform 6 reps , rest for 15 breaths ( roughly 30 secs ) then repeat . The last few sets are very difficult but not failure.
8 x 8 is similar but using a 10-12 rep max poundage to complete.
It helps to choose the correct exercises in order to ensure completion of the sets / reps ... it would be extremely difficult to take your 8 rep max squat and perform 6 sets x 6 reps with 30 sec between sets , BUT it can be done to very good effect with the roman chair or sissy squat ( as an example )

T.


Hey T, cool, thanks for the great info. I've used 6x6 but never stuck with it nearly long enough to 'get into it' and reap some real gains. But your info. really makes me want to move it from the back burner up and give it a try next cycle.

You really stuck with it, that's awesome. And I agree, it's not about CFT working or not, its the exercises used that determine the types of gains. If something grows muscle it grows muscle period.

So one last, probably hard to answer question if I could...

It seems the 'size to strength' ratio is higher on CFT, did you note anything such as, when you progressed X amount in load, you noticed some measureble size increases? The other poster that I C&P'ed his post, noted about 25% strength increase with 6x6 showed some good size gains. (but with heavy low volume it seems we need to increase strength a LOT more to see size gains).

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for answering questions, really appreciate it!





TBH I never sought strength increase when using CFT , I sought to adapt to the respite between sets then decrease the respite further when ease of effort determined ( 15-12 breaths or lower ) this took some months and only on further adaptation to the effort did I seek to raise the resistance and begin at 15 breaths or so again.
For example : Over those 2 yrs I only realised a gain of around 5 kg ( 11 lbs ) on my neck press on the 6 x6 and/or 8 x 8 format but realised considerable change in musculature.
On returning to conventional training on the BIG lifts I felt quite weak and it took some time to get these up again , and in the mean time I maintained some of the CFT exercises as ancillary work to my main lifts. ( Best of both worlds )

T.



Open User Options Menu

Dan_The_man

It's like the sunshine analogy commonly used...But... What they don't say is that you can be exposed to sunshine when its at a lower intensity for longer periods and still usually get a tan.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack, Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy