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
First | Prev | 1 | 2
Author
Rating
Options

Nwlifter

Dan_The_man wrote:
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.


yes, exactly, same with the callous analogy


Open User Options Menu

S.M.Punisher

Intense, infrequent training does not have to be counterproductive. Maybe from a purely short-term hypertrophy point of view, but even if you're recovering for days after the initial protein synthesis window (which I'm still not convinced on, but I'll go with it for argument's sake), what are you recovering from?

Nwlifter said something to me years ago on the HighIntensity.net forum that stuck with me. Something like: You don't have to recover from what you didn't stimulate. Remember that, Analyzer?

So if you're recovering past what would be considered necessary for hypertrophy, you're recovering neurally, right? And so you're adapting neurally. This isn't new news. Many on here got stronger on considerably low frequency. It's still amazing to think how efficient those programs can be. Neural gains might not be what you want (now), but they're still gains.

What I wrote the other day on the other thread are my thoughts on this, and I'll just copy it over. I think it got buried under another concurrent discussion in there, anyway.

I think very hard training is beneficial for strength gains, at least. If it's demanding more neural recovery then it's training the neural component of strength more.

That's laying a foundation for hypertrophy in the future. A lot of people complained that they only got stronger on infrequent training. But do you think you would be able to build the same muscle long term if you'd stayed weaker? Doing higher volume, higher frequency after you've gained significant strength is going to provide a much more potent stimulus to build optimal muscle in my opinion.

People will say that powerlifters don't train to failure and yet they train for strength. Well, firstly, they train pretty close to their limits with heavy loads. Secondly, the loads they use are based on their competition lifts, which almost by definition are to failure. A one-rep max is not a two-rep max. And if it's missed then that's literally failure.

The point being that powerlifters know where their limits are. To gain optimal strength you have to push yourself to your limits at least some of the time.

So while a powerlifter might not technically train to failure, the focus will be to at some point lift with maximum effort, which will inevitably lead to failure to complete a lift every now and then.

***

I'm in favor of a hybrid of approaches - being open to every possible avenue to new gains. I'm not in any one camp or the other. There are more important things to be confrontational over, ideologically, especially right now. When it comes to working out we're all in this together.
Open User Options Menu

Dan_The_man

I've always thought of HIT as a very good yardstick, but there's something very debilitating about it if you get your approach wrong.

If you under or over estimate yourself you wonder where then to go. Then you also question if you've had enough rest, and got the right genetics. Before you know it you're training once per week and looking like the guy that never exercises. Oh wait...you're probably not training hard enough.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Good thoughts!
Hey I do remember that, man good memory you have though, that was a long time ago!
Great post!


S.M.Punisher wrote:
Intense, infrequent training does not have to be counterproductive. Maybe from a purely short-term hypertrophy point of view, but even if you're recovering for days after the initial protein synthesis window (which I'm still not convinced on, but I'll go with it for argument's sake), what are you recovering from?

Nwlifter said something to me years ago on the HighIntensity.net forum that stuck with me. Something like: You don't have to recover from what you didn't stimulate. Remember that, Analyzer?

So if you're recovering past what would be considered necessary for hypertrophy, you're recovering neurally, right? And so you're adapting neurally. This isn't new news. Many on here got stronger on considerably low frequency. It's still amazing to think how efficient those programs can be. Neural gains might not be what you want (now), but they're still gains.

What I wrote the other day on the other thread are my thoughts on this, and I'll just copy it over. I think it got buried under another concurrent discussion in there, anyway.

I think very hard training is beneficial for strength gains, at least. If it's demanding more neural recovery then it's training the neural component of strength more.

That's laying a foundation for hypertrophy in the future. A lot of people complained that they only got stronger on infrequent training. But do you think you would be able to build the same muscle long term if you'd stayed weaker? Doing higher volume, higher frequency after you've gained significant strength is going to provide a much more potent stimulus to build optimal muscle in my opinion.

People will say that powerlifters don't train to failure and yet they train for strength. Well, firstly, they train pretty close to their limits with heavy loads. Secondly, the loads they use are based on their competition lifts, which almost by definition are to failure. A one-rep max is not a two-rep max. And if it's missed then that's literally failure.

The point being that powerlifters know where their limits are. To gain optimal strength you have to push yourself to your limits at least some of the time.

So while a powerlifter might not technically train to failure, the focus will be to at some point lift with maximum effort, which will inevitably lead to failure to complete a lift every now and then.

***

I'm in favor of a hybrid of approaches - being open to every possible avenue to new gains. I'm not in any one camp or the other. There are more important things to be confrontational over, ideologically, especially right now. When it comes to working out we're all in this together.


Open User Options Menu

PTDaniel

Dan_The_man wrote:
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.


Or the analogy of "dose/response" to medicine. Over time in order to receive the same therapeutic effect you need to increase doses and dosing intervals, not decrease them. Your body adapts to increase resistance, not decrease resistance.
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

I just finished blasting my chest and arms with a 6x6 workout. It's been one of my favorite ways to train for some time now. Depending on how heavy you want to go, you can adjust your rest periods accordingly to suit your goals weather it be 2-3 min for pure strength, or 15-60sec for hypertrophy as well as helping get and stay lean. And I find it much more sustainable than going heavy balls to the wall, which I can only tolerate for a few weeks at a time nowadays.

I'm finding that Heavy Duty/DC/Pitt Force style heavy HIT training, works really well the less often I use it. I find it works great for 2-4 week "blasts", the rest of the time I prefer CFT. I started a thread on it on this very forum back in 08 after first reading about it. I remember the first time I did preacher curls in 6x6 fashion, I thought my arms were literally going to burst!. I've done 10x10, which is a bit much and too light for my ego lol. 8x8. 10x3.15x4.6x4. I typically do sets of 6 and do anywhere from 4-10 sets depending on how it's feeling that day and the movement/bodypart etc. I typically rest 1 min on compound movements and 30 sec on isolations, and strive for progression in weight, or reduction in rest time between sets. It's just a very sensible and sustainable way to train!.
http://www.drdarden.com/...ic.do?id=470992
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Hey very cool, great info, I'll check your link. Cool.

Bastion wrote:
I just finished blasting my chest and arms with a 6x6 workout. It's been one of my favorite ways to train for some time now. Depending on how heavy you want to go, you can adjust your rest periods accordingly to suit your goals weather it be 2-3 min for pure strength, or 15-45 sec for hypertrophy as well as helping get and stay lean. And I find it much more sustainable than going heavy balls to the wall, which I can only tolerate for a few weeks at a time nowadays. I'm finding that Heavy Duty/DC/Pitt Force style heavy HIT training, works really well the less often I use it. I find it works great for 2-4 week "blasts", the rest of the time I prefer CFT. I started a thread on it on this very forum back in 08 after first reading about it. I remember the first time I did preacher curls in 6x6 fashion, I thought my arms were literally going to burst!. I've done 10x10, which is a bit much and too light for my ego lol. 8x8. 10x3.15x4.6x4. I typically do sets of 6 and do anywhere from 4-10 sets depending on how it's feeling that day and the movement/bodypart etc. I typically rest 1 min on compound movements and 30 sec on isolations, and strive for progression in weight, or reduction in rest time between sets. It's just a very sensible and sustainable way to train!.
http://www.drdarden.com/...ic.do?id=470992


Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

S.M.Punisher wrote:
Intense, infrequent training does not have to be counterproductive. Maybe from a purely short-term hypertrophy point of view, but even if you're recovering for days after the initial protein synthesis window (which I'm still not convinced on, but I'll go with it for argument's sake), what are you recovering from?

Nwlifter said something to me years ago on the HighIntensity.net forum that stuck with me. Something like: You don't have to recover from what you didn't stimulate. Remember that, Analyzer?

So if you're recovering past what would be considered necessary for hypertrophy, you're recovering neurally, right? And so you're adapting neurally. This isn't new news. Many on here got stronger on considerably low frequency. It's still amazing to think how efficient those programs can be. Neural gains might not be what you want (now), but they're still gains.

What I wrote the other day on the other thread are my thoughts on this, and I'll just copy it over. I think it got buried under another concurrent discussion in there, anyway.

I think very hard training is beneficial for strength gains, at least. If it's demanding more neural recovery then it's training the neural component of strength more.

That's laying a foundation for hypertrophy in the future. A lot of people complained that they only got stronger on infrequent training. But do you think you would be able to build the same muscle long term if you'd stayed weaker? Doing higher volume, higher frequency after you've gained significant strength is going to provide a much more potent stimulus to build optimal muscle in my opinion.

People will say that powerlifters don't train to failure and yet they train for strength. Well, firstly, they train pretty close to their limits with heavy loads. Secondly, the loads they use are based on their competition lifts, which almost by definition are to failure. A one-rep max is not a two-rep max. And if it's missed then that's literally failure.

The point being that powerlifters know where their limits are. To gain optimal strength you have to push yourself to your limits at least some of the time.

So while a powerlifter might not technically train to failure, the focus will be to at some point lift with maximum effort, which will inevitably lead to failure to complete a lift every now and then.

***

I'm in favor of a hybrid of approaches - being open to every possible avenue to new gains. I'm not in any one camp or the other. There are more important things to be confrontational over, ideologically, especially right now. When it comes to working out we're all in this together.


What I have found with very brief, intense training is, you lose endurance. So when you switch to CTF-like training after doing HD, you have to use a lot less weight to keep up with the multiple sets with short rests.

Where as with CTF, you then gradually build up on weight (as needed, of course) although never reaching single to failure max loads.

I'm bringing this up as I switched back to a CFT routine today. Muscle endurance sucks. Will need to re-condition to it again.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Yes, exactly, and I hear twilight zone music, was just talking about this with an email friend, how CFT at first is really related to a lack of muscular endurance, mitochondia and capillaries, and those must be built up before we can even apply what's needed to induce growth with lighter loads and higher fatigue levels.

Are you going for lighter weights really short rests, or medium weights with like a minute between sets, or heavier weights with longer rests for strength?

I've found people online who have great results with all of the above, seems like they all work if a person sticks and makes progress as they go.



HeavyHitter32 wrote:
S.M.Punisher wrote:
Intense, infrequent training does not have to be counterproductive. Maybe from a purely short-term hypertrophy point of view, but even if you're recovering for days after the initial protein synthesis window (which I'm still not convinced on, but I'll go with it for argument's sake), what are you recovering from?

Nwlifter said something to me years ago on the HighIntensity.net forum that stuck with me. Something like: You don't have to recover from what you didn't stimulate. Remember that, Analyzer?

So if you're recovering past what would be considered necessary for hypertrophy, you're recovering neurally, right? And so you're adapting neurally. This isn't new news. Many on here got stronger on considerably low frequency. It's still amazing to think how efficient those programs can be. Neural gains might not be what you want (now), but they're still gains.

What I wrote the other day on the other thread are my thoughts on this, and I'll just copy it over. I think it got buried under another concurrent discussion in there, anyway.

I think very hard training is beneficial for strength gains, at least. If it's demanding more neural recovery then it's training the neural component of strength more.

That's laying a foundation for hypertrophy in the future. A lot of people complained that they only got stronger on infrequent training. But do you think you would be able to build the same muscle long term if you'd stayed weaker? Doing higher volume, higher frequency after you've gained significant strength is going to provide a much more potent stimulus to build optimal muscle in my opinion.

People will say that powerlifters don't train to failure and yet they train for strength. Well, firstly, they train pretty close to their limits with heavy loads. Secondly, the loads they use are based on their competition lifts, which almost by definition are to failure. A one-rep max is not a two-rep max. And if it's missed then that's literally failure.

The point being that powerlifters know where their limits are. To gain optimal strength you have to push yourself to your limits at least some of the time.

So while a powerlifter might not technically train to failure, the focus will be to at some point lift with maximum effort, which will inevitably lead to failure to complete a lift every now and then.

***

I'm in favor of a hybrid of approaches - being open to every possible avenue to new gains. I'm not in any one camp or the other. There are more important things to be confrontational over, ideologically, especially right now. When it comes to working out we're all in this together.

What I have found with very brief, intense training is, you lose endurance. So when you switch to CTF-like training after doing HD, you have to use a lot less weight to keep up with the multiple sets with short rests.

Where as with CTF, you then gradually build up on weight (as needed, of course) although never reaching single to failure max loads.

I'm bring this up as I switched back to a CFT routine today. Muscle endurance sucks. Will need to re-condition to it again.


Open User Options Menu

Bastion

HeavyHitter32 wrote:


***

I'm in favor of a hybrid of approaches - being open to every possible avenue to new gains. I'm not in any one camp or the other. There are more important things to be confrontational over, ideologically, especially right now. When it comes to working out we're all in this together.

What I have found with very brief, intense training is, you lose endurance. So when you switch to CTF-like training after doing HD, you have to use a lot less weight to keep up with the multiple sets with short rests.

Where as with CTF, you then gradually build up on weight (as needed, of course) although never reaching single to failure max loads.

I'm bringing this up as I switched back to a CFT routine today. Muscle endurance sucks. Will need to re-condition to it again.


Back when I was into pure Heavy duty training, training each bodypart every 9-12 days. I did progress and get strong. But the workouts became so draining and daunting that I used to have anxiety before each workout and I'd be asking myself "how much longer can I sustain this"?. When I first switched to CFT I was so sore and lacked muscle endurance so badly it was almost embarrassing. It was like I was badly out of shape. However, doing the infrequent heavy stuff definitely built my strength levels up and taught me my boundaries. I still throw in a few Heavy duty or DC style workouts in here and there and I find it fun now that I am no longer tied to it.

Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

HeavyHitter32 wrote:

What I have found with very brief, intense training is, you lose endurance. So when you switch to CTF-like training after doing HD, you have to use a lot less weight to keep up with the multiple sets with short rests.



That's an understatement for me.

After 15 - 20 years of twice a week , full body , single set to failure routines, I nearly died when I tried to do multiple sets. My endurance SUCKED and it was embarrassing. I'm glad the gym was nearly empty during my first couple attempts with this, lol.

I couldn't believe how bad I was trying to do multiple sets after chasing failure for so many years.

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
What I have found with very brief, intense training is, you lose endurance.


For the everyday Joe who has to work for a living, muscular endurance is much more important than muscular strength or muscular hypertrophy.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Bastion wrote:


Back when I was into pure Heavy duty training, training each bodypart every 9-12 days. I did progress and get strong. But the workouts became so draining and daunting that I used to have anxiety before each workout and I'd be asking myself "how much longer can I sustain this"?. When I first switched to CFT I was so sore and lacked muscle endurance so badly it was almost embarrassing. It was like I was badly out of shape. However, doing the infrequent heavy stuff definitely built my strength levels up and taught me my boundaries. I still throw in a few Heavy duty or DC style workouts in here and there and I find it fun now that I am no longer tied to it.



I hear ya, going to super maximum real failure can be something one dreads. I rarely go that far in a set, it kills me off for such a long time, and I totally lose my desire to train.

People say to train hard, some say really hard, but how hard is their hard training compared to others? No way to know.....

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Good posts...nice to see other people can strongly relate.
Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Nwlifter wrote:




I hear ya, going to super maximum real failure can be something one dreads. I rarely go that far in a set, it kills me off for such a long time, and I totally lose my desire to train.

People say to train hard, some say really hard, but how hard is their hard training compared to others? No way to know.....


Exactly. It's like taking a teaspoon of something. Who's teaspoon are you measuring with?.
Another great method that I can't believe I left out is myo reps. Imo myo reps are an improvement on doing say pitt force style. Not having to rerack after each rep. I pick a #, 35 for example, I'll do the first 12-15 reps stopping shy of failure, pause for 15-20 sec and do mini sets of 3-5 reps until I get to my desired rep count. It's pretty much the same idea as CFT. Nothing new under the sun , but effective and a great way to quickly blast a muscle with a good amount of volume in a short amount of time. I just did quads/calves in 15 min.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Good thoughts, I agree.
Myo reps are cool too, it naturally formats the CFT so each 'block' is more equal. Instead of each 'set' getting harder, each 'mini set' is like an equal component activation-wise.

To me, what is interesting is the whole idea of 'sets', a muscle doesn't see 'sets', it just sees work, fatigue, a pause, more work, a pause. In reality, it's all just 'one set', it's whether or not you pause for some time period during it 'to get more work' in before maximum desired fatigue is reached.

A normal single set
rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep,rep rep, rep, rep end
CFT
rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, pause, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, pause,
ect end


Bastion wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:




I hear ya, going to super maximum real failure can be something one dreads. I rarely go that far in a set, it kills me off for such a long time, and I totally lose my desire to train.

People say to train hard, some say really hard, but how hard is their hard training compared to others? No way to know.....


Exactly. It's like taking a teaspoon of something. Who's teaspoon are you measuring with?.
Another great method that I can't believe I left out is myo reps. Imo myo reps are an improvement on doing say pitt force style. Not having to rerack after each rep. I pick a #, 35 for example, I'll do the first 12-15 reps stopping shy of failure, pause for 15-20 sec and do mini sets of 3-5 reps until I get to my desired rep count. It's pretty much the same idea as CFT. Nothing new under the sun , but effective and a great way to quickly blast a muscle with a good amount of volume in a short amount of time. I just did quads/calves in 15 min.


Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy