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
Bring Up HIT on an HVT Forum...
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

deanjones

... and you're immmediately called dogmatic and basically told you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was on the Wannabebigforums.com site and talking under the Bodybuilding and Weightlifting forum and a guy wanted to know about doing a full body routine but didn't want to spend 3 hours in the gym.

So, I mention HIT. Immediately people come in and start telling me that I'm dogmatic and all sorts of stuff. All I did was say pretty much say Hey, if you want a real full body routine, try HIT. I'm in and out of the gym in 20 minutes! And explained my routine, what I do, how it's done, etc...

I also said something along the lines of

"The idea is to put all of your intensity and all of your power into that one set instead of dividing your power/intensity up into multiple sets. You can really either do one set at fully intensity and full fatigue, or a bunch of sets at partial intensity building up fatigue."

And I was told that those two things are completely different. But are they really? I mean, when I do HVT, I pick a weight that I can handle through 4 - 5 sets and start to fail on the 5th set. But, with HIT, I fatigue and fail on the first set.

The first 3 - 4 sets under HVT, I'm no where near failure or full fatigue, but the last 2 sets I'm either close to it or finally at full fatigue. So how is that any different? It just seems longer to me...

I was also told that bring deadlifts in my routine for short 8 week stints is a bad idea because I won't "progress" in the lift. I mean, I beg to differ, but I thought that was hilarious.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

I wouldn't put much stock in the opinions of people who probably consider muscle magazines and GNC sales people reliable sources of training information.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

Well, I'm just curious... Am I wrong on the fatigue statement? I mean, the only thing the guy said was "Those are NOT the same thing" And that was it... Ok, how are the NOT the same thing? You go through multiple sets doing half assed work, building up the fatigue in the muscles as you go along, right? I mean, that's what it always felt like to me...
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

1) Opinions vary.

2) Proper masculinity demands a certain gentleness when dealing with others, thus, you would treat others how YOU would want to be treated. That means you respect their viewpoint(s), but still maintain the right to respectfully disagree.

For example, let's say I brought up on this forum (a HIT forum) that I thought training every day worked well for me. I might do several sets to sub-failure of 3-5 reps/multiple sets. In between the sets I stretch and stay active, so I can get my 30 minutes daily of exercise. I don't believe this would go over too well here either, get my point.

Just for the record, training to failure is not necessary for growth, nor is fatique. Many men have gotten very big and strong on sub-failure routines, and not reaching fatique. And doing multiple sets, does not mean you are doing half-a##ed workouts.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

marcrph wrote:
1) Opinions vary.

2) Proper masculinity demands a certain gentleness when dealing with others, thus, you would treat others how YOU would want to be treated. That means you respect their viewpoint(s), but still maintain the right to respectfully disagree.

For example, let's say I brought up on this forum (a HIT forum) that I thought training every day worked well for me. I might do several sets to sub-failure of 3-5 reps/multiple sets. In between the sets I stretch and stay active, so I can get my 30 minutes daily of exercise. I don't believe this would go over too well here either, get my point.

Just for the record, training to failure is not necessary for growth, nor is fatique. Many men have gotten very big and strong on sub-failure routines, and not reaching fatique. And doing multiple sets, does not mean you are doing half-a##ed workouts.


Half of that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was asking, but thanks anyway.

I honestly consider myself to always be respectful. If you go read that post, I am in no way telling anyone that their training methods are wrong. In fact, I say the opposite. I say if it works for you, keep doing it.

As far as training to failure and fatigue... As you said, opinions vary as well as results. I can honestly say I didn't put a pound of muscle on me until I started really training to fatigue. 1 year into training and I still weighed 155 lbs and looked exactly the same as I did before I even started training and was just an avid mountain biker.

I can say the same for this group of boys that comes into my gym on the same days I train. They have been coming for 9 months now and their bodies have yet to change. If you watch them, they never come even close to fatigue or failure but do multiple sets of every exercise they do. For other men in my gym that I have seen over my time there, you can see dramatic improvements in a 9 month period.

But, that even starts to stray from my point. How can you do 5 sets of any exercise, back-to-back and maintain that intensity throughout the 5 sets unless you pick a weight that is lower than you could do for one set at a higher intensity?

Open User Options Menu

oneHITwonder

I wouldn't worry about it. You tried to explain another way and they didn't want to learn, so be it. Let them keep on keeping on.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

deanjones wrote:
Well, I'm just curious... Am I wrong on the fatigue statement? I mean, the only thing the guy said was "Those are NOT the same thing" And that was it... Ok, how are the NOT the same thing? You go through multiple sets doing half assed work, building up the fatigue in the muscles as you go along, right? I mean, that's what it always felt like to me...


If anything, you may have been guilty of oversimplifying the equation.
Fatigue is part of the equation there.

Mainly, IMO, you're trying to get a message of "GROW" across to your body. You can do that with 3 sets of 70 lbs or concisely with one set at 85 lbs, for example.

Terms like "half assed" won't win you any friends on those forums (even if it's oftentimes truer than true). Show them you respect the fact that a longer time spent in the gym is hard in its own way.

Granted, we've all seen some half-assed pump set BS at one time or another, but throwing it in their faces won't get a good reaction.

They may not buy the single set per exercise part, but perhaps you can convince them that only one exercise per bodypart is needed when doing full-body workouts. Even multi-set proponents recommend this approach when doing full body. This would be an easier Step 1. instead of trying to get them swallow the whole HIT methodology right off the bat.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

deanjones wrote:
marcrph wrote:
1) Opinions vary.

2) Proper masculinity demands a certain gentleness when dealing with others, thus, you would treat others how YOU would want to be treated. That means you respect their viewpoint(s), but still maintain the right to respectfully disagree.

For example, let's say I brought up on this forum (a HIT forum) that I thought training every day worked well for me. I might do several sets to sub-failure of 3-5 reps/multiple sets. In between the sets I stretch and stay active, so I can get my 30 minutes daily of exercise. I don't believe this would go over too well here either, get my point.

Just for the record, training to failure is not necessary for growth, nor is fatique. Many men have gotten very big and strong on sub-failure routines, and not reaching fatique. And doing multiple sets, does not mean you are doing half-a##ed workouts.

Half of that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was asking, but thanks anyway.

I honestly consider myself to always be respectful. If you go read that post, I am in no way telling anyone that their training methods are wrong. In fact, I say the opposite. I say if it works for you, keep doing it.

As far as training to failure and fatigue... As you said, opinions vary as well as results. I can honestly say I didn't put a pound of muscle on me until I started really training to fatigue. 1 year into training and I still weighed 155 lbs and looked exactly the same as I did before I even started training and was just an avid mountain biker.

I can say the same for this group of boys that comes into my gym on the same days I train. They have been coming for 9 months now and their bodies have yet to change. If you watch them, they never come even close to fatigue or failure but do multiple sets of every exercise they do. For other men in my gym that I have seen over my time there, you can see dramatic improvements in a 9 month period.

But, that even starts to stray from my point. How can you do 5 sets of any exercise, back-to-back and maintain that intensity throughout the 5 sets unless you pick a weight that is lower than you could do for one set at a higher intensity?



I never thought you were being disrespectful, but rather the people whom you stated came in and said "you were being dogmatic and all sorts of stuff."

However, it is not an opinion about training to failure/fatique being necessary for muscular growth. Empirical evidence and scientific studies abound showing otherwise. I challenge anyone on this forum to find just one scientific study that states training to failure/fatique is necessary for muscular growth.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

Well, I didn't use the term half-assed on that site. I said:

"You can really either do one set at full intensity and full fatigue, or a bunch of sets at partial intensity building up fatigue."
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

marcrph wrote:
I never thought you were being disrespectful, but rather the people whom you stated came in and said "you were being dogmatic and all sorts of stuff."

However, it is not an opinion about training to failure/fatique being necessary for muscular growth. Empirical evidence and scientific studies abound showing otherwise. I challenge anyone on this forum to find just one scientific study that states training to failure/fatique is necessary for muscular growth.


I don't think it's necessary for all people. I think that for some people it's a good shock to push the muscle into growth like it was for me.

I always just considered that to be a big part of HIT though... Pushing yourself to do those last few reps you didn't think you could do and then hitting failure. To me, HIT doesn't make sense if I'm not pushing myself to do just one more rep.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

deanjones wrote:

I always just considered that to be a big part of HIT though... Pushing yourself to do those last few reps you didn't think you could do and then hitting failure. To me, HIT doesn't make sense if I'm not pushing myself to do just one more rep.


You are correct sir, however, most thought the new information in TNHIT book by Dr. Darden was NTF training. Dr. Darden had written about this previously, but not many paid attention.

Historically, all strongmen, powerlifters, Olympic lifters, train low reps, multiple sets, and non-failure. This was the formula for success. The formula is still correct, as the exceptions to the formula could probably be counted on the fingers on your hands.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

marcrph wrote:
Historically, all strongmen, powerlifters, Olympic lifters, ....


I knew that was coming 7 posts ago. It just wouldn't be a marcph post without a reference to 'old-time' lifters.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

TheSofaKing wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Historically, all strongmen, powerlifters, Olympic lifters, ....

I knew that was coming 7 posts ago. It just wouldn't be a marcph post without a reference to 'old-time' lifters.



Thanks, I really appreciate your response, as well as the old-timers!
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

deanjones wrote:
I always just considered that to be a big part of HIT though... Pushing yourself to do those last few reps you didn't think you could do and then hitting failure. To me, HIT doesn't make sense if I'm not pushing myself to do just one more rep.


It's ok on occasion - failure is also the reason HIT is shunned.

Take a look at this:
(i don't agree with all said within,but a well written article nonetheless)

www.mindandmuscle.net/mindandmuscle/magpage.php?issueID=19&artID=999238

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

deanjones wrote:
Well, I didn't use the term half-assed on that site. I said:

"You can really either do one set at full intensity and full fatigue, or a bunch of sets at partial intensity building up fatigue."


The thing is they aren't the same, you get a different effect from using more volume to create fatigue. Without really going into the physiology of it all ? more volume often helps build better feel and thus better isolation. As well, it offers you far more practice at finding moves that better target your muscles. Unfortunately in most cases it is just wasted time and effort.

What I see a lot in mainstream bodybuilding is people who didn't get volume right when trying HIT, plus their form, intensity etc. was lacking. They conclude it doesn't work and that intensity is no substitute for volume, load and frequency. With far more volume and frequency you can play a lot more 'hit and miss' and succeed/learn by accident which in the end is what most trainees do anyway.

Worse yet are those whose only exposure to HIT is through one of the spin off's like HD, S.S. and such, which work for only a very limit cross section of society.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Coma

Illinois, USA

This is one thing I really hate about the internet, everyone argues about this. But this is one of the most civil sites I've seen. Why can't people just shut up and train? Do what works for you.

I basically use two different methods, EDT, which I knock out a lot of sub-failure sets in a short amount of time and HIT. For me and my training partner EDT is much better for size with some strength gains, and HIT is much better strength and a little size, at least for us.

We do different cycles because we make better progress than if we stick to one method for too long.

Don't even think of going to HVT boards and mentioning HIT, and if I go to another HIT board and mention EDT I'll get ripped apart. At least here, while most won't agree with it they tear me apart.
Open User Options Menu

JOE W

Dean,

You are paying the price for the HIT disciples who loudly proclaim that their way is the only way to train and if you don't lift like they do you are a fool. Often these arrogant know-it-alls have little muscle and have never won a bodybuilding contest and they never will but they have read everything that Mike Mentzer ever wrote !

Sounds like a couple of members of this forum .......

HIT is a useful tool but it is not always the best way to train for everybody. Most great physiques have been built with a lot of sets and reps (and drugs).

To be fair ,many members here already know this and are past this stage.

Joe
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

What does EDT stand for?
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
What does EDT stand for?


Escalating Density Training.

To give a VERY simple example:
How many total reps can you get in the next 5 minutes? Great, next week, try to get more reps in the same time frame.
Open User Options Menu

Coma

Illinois, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
What does EDT stand for?


Escalating Density Training. There are articles about it by Charles Staley on T-Nation.com
Open User Options Menu

spud

STanner wrote:
How many total reps can you get in the next 5 minutes? Great, next week, try to get more reps in the same time frame.


The reason I'd be wary of this is that it points you in the direction of fast, pumping repetitons.

To get more reps in the same time frame you obviously need to go faster.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

I appreciate all of the responses. It helps a lot to know a bit more about the differences between the two greatly debated systems.
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

spud wrote:
STanner wrote:
How many total reps can you get in the next 5 minutes? Great, next week, try to get more reps in the same time frame.

The reason I'd be wary of this is that it points you in the direction of fast, pumping repetitons.

To get more reps in the same time frame you obviously need to go faster.


Or you require less rest time because you're stronger/recovery better between bouts.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Law&Order wrote:

www.mindandmuscle.net/mindandmuscle/magpage.php?issueID=19&artID=999238



Law&Order

Thanks for that excellent article. I do not agree with a few of his analogies, but his main premise is quite palatable.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Coma wrote:
This is one thing I really hate about the internet, everyone argues about this. But this is one of the most civil sites I've seen. Why can't people just shut up and train? Do what works for you.

I basically use two different methods, EDT, which I knock out a lot of sub-failure sets in a short amount of time and HIT. For me and my training partner EDT is much better for size with some strength gains, and HIT is much better strength and a little size, at least for us.

We do different cycles because we make better progress than if we stick to one method for too long.

Don't even think of going to HVT boards and mentioning HIT, and if I go to another HIT board and mention EDT I'll get ripped apart. At least here, while most won't agree with it they tear me apart.


Coma,

I applaud you for your stance on EDT. EDT reminds me of German Volume Training. Vince Gironda sanctioned this style of training. I have tried this method, and it works well, but one can get overtrained quite rapidly if the volume of training is not monitored.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy