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
HIT vs HST
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

jsaller

has anyone given the hst program (HYPERTROPHY SPECIF TRAINING) a try?
brief overview- full body program (3 days a week OR MORE) w/ emphasis on compound exercises.
8 week cycle consisting of:
2 weeks of 15 reps per exercise
2 weeks of 10 reps per exercise w/ 2nd set of 5 reps
2 weeks of 5 reps per exercise w/ 2nd and 3rd sets of 5 reps
2 weeks of negatives or na. if not feasible, contine sets of 5's.
2 weeks off to decondition or "soften" up the muscles for the next cycle.

you do not train to momentary failure.
everything is cycled w/ an emphasis on lighter weights during the 15's (flushing of lactic acid is supposed to help heal the tendons that were hit hard during the previous 4 weeks of the program.)
some zig-zagging can be applied if needed but the emphasis is on increasing the weight from workout to workout.

the thought is that hypertrophy is created through the increased frequency and increasing weights from workout to workout.
avoidance of failure is emphasized to avoid cns "burnout" and allow the more frequent bodypart hits.

some folks actually train 5 and 6x a week, while increasing size and strength. at least that is what they say.
typically 10-15 sets a workout. a lot of their trainees swear by this program.
any opinions or thoughts?
Open User Options Menu

ron33

Give it a try,I tried a lot of different routines over the years till i found what worked best for me.It cant hurt to try and see what works best for you.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Avoiding 'momentary failure', and rest sound more like ingredients for NOT growing or getting stronger. I also don't like the implication that hypertrophy requires a different system then strength.
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

TheSofaKing wrote:
Avoiding 'momentary failure', and rest sound more like ingredients for NOT growing or getting stronger. I also don't like the implication that hypertrophy requires a different system then strength.

You might want to read Semper Service on the IART website, regarding strength and hypertrophy being on different systems. While it's no entirely true, stronger doesn't always equal bigger.
Open User Options Menu

HIT

Norway

From the HST website:

HIT or HD

To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions:

Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”.

Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength

HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms.

- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).

- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.

- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.

- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.

- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.

Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.

After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).

HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

The idea of strategic deconditioning is completely whacko! So I would be very suspicious of HST.
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
The idea of strategic deconditioning is completely whacko! So I would be very suspicious of HST.


Do you not take breaks from your training to rest?

Is it really that wacko? Dr. Darden has suggested a week off for rest after his routines (usually to the tune of once every 12 weeks).

In fact, right now I'm in a state of "deconditioning"; I had a NTF workout wednesday and I start a hard and heavy blitz cycle starting this Tuesday. I've just slept and ate... it's been nice.
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

On what HIT wrote:

" HIT came from the imagination of Arthur Jones " ?
What kind of backhanded , side of the mouth , personal insult is that ? Arthur Jones spent decades and millions of dollars researching exercise. The fact that he did so indipendantly without "official" sanction by expert " researchers " by no means detracts from the validity of his observations or conclusions. This is an example of what is known as a logical fallacy termed " the arguement from authority " . In other words , nothing is valid if it does not come from an officially accredited source. Bullshit!

The author had " to find a way to get bigger without getting stronger first " ? If you increase the size of a muscle you increase it's strength , nothing else is possible.

" With HS , you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as HIT and growth is greatly accelerated. "
Really ? Where is his proof ? If increased volume is the key , then why not workout 6 times as much or more ? In fact why not adopt a double split, 7 day routine as many HVT proponents espouse ? What a load of crap.


Bill
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

I have one simple question: Do you really want to spend that much time in the gym?

When you work out that often, believe me it starts to take over your life.

I tried something very similar a few years ago in my quest for the Holy Grail Routine. My "battle plan" for that day's workout, dominated my thoughts all day long.

What a waste. I have so many other things to do in my life besides workout.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

noone

New York, USA

bill1 wrote:

The author had " to find a way to get bigger without getting stronger first " ? If you increase the size of a muscle you increase it's strength , nothing else is possible.

Bill


This guy wanted to get bigger and weaker.

Bret
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
I have one simple question: Do you really want to spend that much time in the gym?

When you work out that often, believe me it starts to take over your life.

I tried something very similar a few years ago in my quest for the Holy Grail Routine. My "battle plan" for that day's workout, dominated my thoughts all day long.

What a waste. I have so many other things to do in my life besides workout.

Scott


Well said, Scott.

I get a bit of ribbing from friends who are always in the gym. I tell them I won't put more than an hour a week (save for my 4x yearly blitz) into training. It's an adjunct to life, not the totality thereof.

Skyler
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

HIT wrote:
From the HST website:

- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).


This is incorrect. HIT is also used by bodybuilders.



- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.


This is incorrect. HIT actually uses a more sensible system of progression, usually double but in some cases single. HST s progression is based on arbitrary cycles of rep ranges.



- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.


This is ridiculous. Fatigue is not a goal of HIT. Hypertrophy can be a goal of HIT for some, strength for others. What the author of this article did is attempt to construct a "straw man" to knock down. It is not a fair comparison.



- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.


HIT is better supported by the research than HST. I've spoken with a few people who are familiar with the studies HST is based on and read several myself, and much of the HST program is not really supported by the research. Haycock makes some huge assumptions in his conclusions.



- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.


What a load of bullshit. HIT is based on sound principles, and has been shown by a large amount of research and experience to be a safe and effective way to train. HST comes from Bryan Haycocks interpretation of research, and is not directly supported by the research, unlike HIT.



Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.


It isn't necessary to train to failure to stimulate hypertrophy, what is necessary is simply progressive overload. Training to failure is more effective and provides a better, more objective measure of progress, however.



After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger.


This is also bullshit. You can get stronger without getting bigger, but you can not get bigger without getting stronger. If you are bigger, you have more contractile tissue, in which case, all else being equal, you will be stronger.



Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).


His "strategic deconditioning" is based on his misunderstanding of repeated bout effect. It's just an extended recovery period. Training frequency and resistance increases should not be based on an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all schedule, but rather on individual requirements.



HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated.


This statement is completely unfounded. "..growth is greatly accelerated"? According to what? Where are the numbers? If he's going to make claims like that he should have some numbers to back them up with.

Drew Baye
Open User Options Menu

glenn_001

New Zealand

Drew,

I had serious doubts about HST, thanks for clarifying it for me.

Glenn
Open User Options Menu

HIT

Norway

Drew Baye wrote:
HIT wrote:
From the HST website:

- HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
- HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size).

This is incorrect. HIT is also used by bodybuilders.



- HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
- HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.

This is incorrect. HIT actually uses a more sensible system of progression, usually double but in some cases single. HST s progression is based on arbitrary cycles of rep ranges.



- HIT's goal is fatigue.
- HST's goal is hypertrophy.

This is ridiculous. Fatigue is not a goal of HIT. Hypertrophy can be a goal of HIT for some, strength for others. What the author of this article did is attempt to construct a "straw man" to knock down. It is not a fair comparison.



- HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
- HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.


HIT is better supported by the research than HST. I've spoken with a few people who are familiar with the studies HST is based on and read several myself, and much of the HST program is not really supported by the research. Haycock makes some huge assumptions in his conclusions.



- HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
- HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.

What a load of bullshit. HIT is based on sound principles, and has been shown by a large amount of research and experience to be a safe and effective way to train. HST comes from Bryan Haycocks interpretation of research, and is not directly supported by the research, unlike HIT.



Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.

It isn't necessary to train to failure to stimulate hypertrophy, what is necessary is simply progressive overload. Training to failure is more effective and provides a better, more objective measure of progress, however.



After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger.

This is also bullshit. You can get stronger without getting bigger, but you can not get bigger without getting stronger. If you are bigger, you have more contractile tissue, in which case, all else being equal, you will be stronger.



Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).

His "strategic deconditioning" is based on his misunderstanding of repeated bout effect. It's just an extended recovery period. Training frequency and resistance increases should not be based on an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all schedule, but rather on individual requirements.



HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated.

This statement is completely unfounded. "..growth is greatly accelerated"? According to what? Where are the numbers? If he's going to make claims like that he should have some numbers to back them up with.

Drew Baye


Since you are a member of the HST board I believe you have read the science about HST! Do you believe in it?

Open User Options Menu

HIT

Norway

From the HST website:

IART

Brian Johnston feels you should train a muscle according to its "rate of fatigue". I feel a muscle’s rate of fatigue is irrelevant to “hypertrophy”. I argue that it is load, rather than fatigue, that is the prime stimulus for hypertrophy. Otherwise, wouldn’t marathon runners have hypertrophied muscle? What about distance swimmers?

Training programs based on fatigue are strength-endurance specific, not hypertrophy-specific. Never mind all the research showing load and microtrauma as the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. Not to mention the studies showing that fatigue actually reduces microtrauma.
Keep in mind that IART is heavily influenced by Arthur Jones. Arthur Jones isn’t “into” physiology, or science. He is into “common sense” and stress. I, on the other hand, am into science and the mechanisms of muscle fiber hypertrophy.
Open User Options Menu

Ryo

Switzerland

Bryan showed a study which shows 40% more gains when you train a muscle 3x per week versus 1x per week. But that's one and only one study and probably done on beginners who learned movements faster of had bigger neural gains.
He also showed a study about eccentric beeing 10x superior to concentric training. But now some studies show no differences. It's relatively easy to build a method based on some studies but a lot of studies are wrong.

From what I have read in this thread I believe he's right about one thing :

Training programs based on fatigue are strength-endurance specific, not hypertrophy-specific.

Hypertrophy is not related to a specific time under tension or ideal rep range. Hypertrophy is directly linked to strength (maximum strength, 1RM).
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

STanner wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
The idea of strategic deconditioning is completely whacko! So I would be very suspicious of HST.

Do you not take breaks from your training to rest?

Is it really that wacko? Dr. Darden has suggested a week off for rest after his routines (usually to the tune of once every 12 weeks).

In fact, right now I'm in a state of "deconditioning"; I had a NTF workout wednesday and I start a hard and heavy blitz cycle starting this Tuesday. I've just slept and ate... it's been nice.


If you didn't loose size and strength then no deconditioning has taken place. If this is not what you or the creator of HST means by deconditioning it's a missuse of the word to decondition, conditioning must be reversed.

If what you are saying is that you are indeed in a state of deconditioning and you are deliberately loosing size and strength I don't see how you could in just 1 week.
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
STanner wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
The idea of strategic deconditioning is completely whacko! So I would be very suspicious of HST.

Do you not take breaks from your training to rest?

Is it really that wacko? Dr. Darden has suggested a week off for rest after his routines (usually to the tune of once every 12 weeks).

In fact, right now I'm in a state of "deconditioning"; I had a NTF workout wednesday and I start a hard and heavy blitz cycle starting this Tuesday. I've just slept and ate... it's been nice.

If you didn't loose size and strength then no deconditioning has taken place. If this is not what you or the creator of HST means by deconditioning it's a missuse of the word to decondition, conditioning must be reversed.

If what you are saying is that you are indeed in a state of deconditioning and you are deliberately loosing size and strength I don't see how you could in just 1 week.


You can't and they fully admit this. A 9-14 day layoff isn't going to ruin months of progress.

You're right though, they misuse the word.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

HIT wrote:

Since you are a member of the HST board I believe you have read the science about HST! Do you believe in it?



I have read the full text of some of it, and the abstracts of most of it, and talked with a few other people about it who follow the research far more closely than I do, and HST is not directly supported by any of it. There are no studies that actually use the HST protocol that say "this works better than that". Basically, Haycock made a lot of assumptions based on his interpretations of the research, some of which don't quite hold up when compared to other strength training research, such as that that shows that periodization does not produce better size or strength gains than traditional training. HST is basically a periodized strength training system comprised of 3 cycles and a layoff.

I would have to read through it all again to make a more specific critique.

Drew Baye
Open User Options Menu

jack32

the recommendation is more along the lines of 2 weeks of no training, especially if the previous cycle involved negative or na training.
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
HIT wrote:

Basically, Haycock made a lot of assumptions based on his interpretations of the research, some of which don't quite hold up when compared to other strength training research,
Drew Baye


That is hitting the nail on the head , not only for Haycock but a whole lot of others as well , from Anonymous to Waterbury. Very lucid asessment.

Bill
Open User Options Menu

jack32

drew, bill, anyone-
i have 30 yrs. of training under my belt. i've tried titan training (HVT), hst, ironman's periodization program, Dr. Darden's hit full body and mentzer's split hit and consolidation program.

i've always worked extremely hard on the hit programs and have practiced this method of training for the majority of my lifting career.
i do want to make it clear--I PREFER HIT! this is what we teach at main line health and fitness.

BUT, my best gains, both in strength and size, particularly in the UPPER body, have come through the volume programs and AVOIDING failure.
at my age (49), however, the increase in frequency, despite very good form, typically results in overuse in the elbows and shoulders.
i suppose i am more of slow twitch guy in the upper body (lower body has extremely long muscles in quads, hams and calves and good response to minimal sets to failure) with long tendons in both the triceps and biceps and flat delts.
normal hit program incorporates 1 or 2 sets per upper body every 3 to 4 days.

have you had experience w/ any of your clients, who have had the same issues as me?

has anyone responded better to doing 3 or 4 sets per bodypart, NTF, 2 or 3 times weekly, as opposed to 1 or 2 sets to momentary muscular failure 2x weekly?

i recall AJ, in brian johnston's book-- RATIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING-- discussing the issue of multiple sets NTF for certain individuals.
thanks in adavance guys.

jack
Open User Options Menu

bill1

California, USA

jack32 wrote:
drew, bill, anyone-
i have 30 yrs. of training under my belt. i've tried titan training (HVT), hst, ironman's periodization program, Dr. Darden's hit full body and mentzer's split hit and consolidation program.

i've always worked extremely hard on the hit programs and have practiced this method of training for the majority of my lifting career.
i do want to make it clear--I PREFER HIT! this is what we teach at main line health and fitness.

BUT, my best gains, both in strength and size, particularly in the LOWER body, have come through the volume programs and AVOIDING failure.
at my age (49), however, the increase in frequency, despite very good form, typically results in overuse in the elbows and shoulders.
i suppose i am more of slow twitch guy in the upper body (lower body has extremely long muscles in quads, hams and calves) with long tendons in both the triceps and biceps and flat delts.
normal hit program incorporates 1 or 2 sets per upper body every 3 to 4 days.

have you had experience w/ any of your clients, who have had the same issues as me?

has anyone responded better to doing 3 or 4 sets per bodypart, NTF, 2 or 3 times weekly, as opposed to 1 or 2 sets to momentary muscular failure 2x weekly?

i recall AJ, in brian johnston's book-- RATIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING-- discussing the issue of multiple sets NTF for certain individuals.
thanks in adavance guys.

jack


I have mostly worked with AAU bodybuilders in the early 70s and most of them were on drugs. We were using AJs early HIT that utilized 3 sets of about 12 exercises 3 times a week. looking back , I think these guys would have done better with less volume, but they all did well as they were above average , on drugs and were previously doing mostly the old double split ( AM/PM 2-3 hour workouts, 6 days a week ).

The individuals I trained in the 80s and 90s were all average men and women with health problems or pregnant. They all did very well on 2 x wk , 1 set of 10-12 exercises.

I have no experience with what you describe.



Bill
Open User Options Menu

Sesame

And the controversy continues... LOL!

I have a [possible] solution! Why don't we do our normal HIT routine, our normal # sets,, but with one EXCEPTION:

Pick ONE of your fav muscles, HIT IT AND ONLY IT WITH MORE SETS!! See first hand how it responds! Do this with ALL your muscles, ONE AT A TIME!!

Is this great or what??!! Theorizing is simply wonderful BUT results are WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD! Who can say what is best for you? YOU can't even say what is best for you or a particular muscle TILL YOU'VE TESTED IT!

What have you got to lose?? You'll still be doing your usual routine but conducting an experiment at same time that will possibly provide valuable info that will shape your training and improve your results for years to come!

One caveat! Make sure you train/test only ONE muscle at a time! Too much volume testing too many muscles at once will skew the results, cut into your systemic recovery etc.

What do you think?? Personally I luv it! It's brilliant!
:)
Open User Options Menu

jack32

sesame-
very good point!
nice and simple experiment. thanks.

jack
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy