"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.
It strikes me that the more I look at HIT and its nemesis HVT, both have much in common. For example, training to failure is not exclusive to the former, with many HVT trainees regularly taking a set to positive failure without necessarily making a big deal out of it. Same is true of other modes of intensity, e.g. forced reps, negatives, super-sets, etc.
The real debate, it appears to me, regards the notion that the stronger one gets, the less one can tolerate bouts of high intensity exercise. HIT claims this is the case. HVT claims the opposite is true and points to Olympic weightlifters, track athletes and bodybuilders who train up to twice a day, six days a week.
I have read that protein synthesis is complete in 48 hours, meaning longer periods of rest between exercise episodes are not required. That would equate to three full-body sessions a week, i.e. HIT; or more frequent training sessions using body-split programmes, i.e. HVT.
It would appear, then, as though both schools are not as disparate as it seems in principle.
I have read that protein synthesis is complete in 48 hours, meaning longer periods of rest between exercise episodes are not required. That would equate to three full-body sessions a week, i.e. HIT; or more frequent training sessions using body-split programmes, i.e. HVT.
It would appear, then, as though both schools are not as disparate as it seems in principle.
From my personal encounters, I have found that longer rest is best as I was four reps short this week on my leg press, compared to the previous leg workout. With HVT, there tends to be less intensity involved with the workouts over several sets because if you took all that energy and used it within one set ( HIT ) you certainly aren't wanting to do more sets after that and if you did, it could prove counter-productive. I've never liked HVT as I used to think " oh crap another hour and a half". Now I just go in for the kill and take my time...not too long though and work the muscles effectively.
Protein sysnthesis may indeed take 48 hours but your body's energy reserves must build up. Think of it like a volcano.....you are due for an enormous amount of energy release...and bang you've released it....now you have to slowly build that energy back up again which takes time. I think this is a sound anallergy.
stevecollins33 wrote:
It strikes me that the more I look at HIT and its nemesis HVT, both have much in common. For example, training to failure is not exclusive to the former, with many HVT trainees regularly taking a set to positive failure without necessarily making a big deal out of it. Same is true of other modes of intensity, e.g. forced reps, negatives, super-sets, etc.
The real debate, it appears to me, regards the notion that the stronger one gets, the less one can tolerate bouts of high intensity exercise. HIT claims this is the case. HVT claims the opposite is true and points to Olympic weightlifters, track athletes and bodybuilders who train up to twice a day, six days a week.
I have read that protein synthesis is complete in 48 hours, meaning longer periods of rest between exercise episodes are not required. That would equate to three full-body sessions a week, i.e. HIT; or more frequent training sessions using body-split programmes, i.e. HVT.
It would appear, then, as though both schools are not as disparate as it seems in principle.
ok Steve not wanting to start another mile long thread but.....HVT taking one set to positve failure? you mean the Arnold "ooh this is starting to get uncomfortable,ill make a few faces,then put it down" type failure, or the Casey leg press,leg etn 20 rep squat,with Jones barking in his ear type failure?ok ive used a well worn example.Ive just had a 20 minute discussion with a friend of mine,who says he trains hard.i argued that he has no idea of hard trainnig(I used to train with him)thing is,its mostly percieved (hard work)You should know the difference.So what if athletes/body builders train 6 days? doesnt mean its hard training.my grandmother could train 6 days a week,once again that word again,intensity.Protein Synthesis? so what? muscle grow through adaption,your system needs recovery first,then if stimulated a few extra calories,and rest. that simple.Steve you havent been reading Flex have you?
Of course, in both camps there also exists a degree of fanaticism by its followers. There are those in the HIT camp who discard out of hand any suggestion of moving faster, loosening form, or multiple sets. There are also parallel HVT promoters who discard the concept of making good progress on 2-3 whole body workouts, one set to failure, etc.
I lean towards HIT because it seems more systematic, organized, and logical. These are some of the attributes that first drew me to Darden's writings. Compared to the hodgepodge of inconsistent (and flatly contradictory) advice I would read in muscle magazines or bodybuilding books, the HIT approach gives a logical base to work from.
It is possible that a person would start with a Jones-type barbell program 3x/week of 15 or so exercises, one set to failure. As some point he may need to decrease that to 2x per week, 8 exercises, 1 set to failure. Eventually, he may only be able to perform one to-failure workout per week, but needs 1-2 NTF workouts per week to keep his metabolic adaptations from breaking down. The NTF workouts become, in a sense, a necessary evil between to-failure workouts. This is the exact opposite of the HVT perspective, which would look at the one weekly to-failure workout as some sort of intensity blasting in order to stimulate the muscle in different ways than normal.
I am currently on a short to-failure workout, 3x per week. I'm experimenting with having 3 shorter workouts per week instead of cutting down to 2 or less. Currently I perform 5 total exercises, with only one 'heavy compound' (squat or DL) per workout.
I wonder how the results will compare with perform 2 workouts of 8-10 exercises per week.
coomo wrote:
ok Steve not wanting to start another mile long thread but.....HVT taking one set to positve failure? you mean the Arnold "ooh this is starting to get uncomfortable,ill make a few faces,then put it down" type failure, or the Casey leg press,leg etn 20 rep squat,with Jones barking in his ear type failure?ok ive used a well worn example.Ive just had a 20 minute discussion with a friend of mine,who says he trains hard.i argued that he has no idea of hard trainnig(I used to train with him)thing is,its mostly percieved (hard work)You should know the difference.So what if athletes/body builders train 6 days? doesnt mean its hard training.my grandmother could train 6 days a week,once again that word again,intensity.Protein Synthesis? so what? muscle grow through adaption,your system needs recovery first,then if stimulated a few extra calories,and rest. that simple.Steve you havent been reading Flex have you?
I'm not sure I understood any of that.
However, I'm assume your insinuating that guys like Arnold were blessed with such genetics, and equipped with drugs, that they only hard to turn up to add an inch to their bicep. And that the genetically average, drug-free need HIT to progress? Bit too simplistic an argument to hold any weight to be honest.
I don't think there is a debate, at least there shouldn't be. Contrary to popular belief in the HIT community, HVT does work and it works better for some people. I know many people who got nothing from HIT but are huge from HVT. I know many others who do better with HIT, myself included. I just don't argue anymore because I know HIT is not the only way to train.
stevecollins33 wrote:
It strikes me that the more I look at HIT and its nemesis HVT, both have much in common. For example, training to failure is not exclusive to the former, with many HVT trainees regularly taking a set to positive failure without necessarily making a big deal out of it. Same is true of other modes of intensity, e.g. forced reps, negatives, super-sets, etc.
I heard HVT guys say this but I don't buy it. It's been said a million times, "you can train hard or you can train long but you can't do both". HVT guys are fooling themselves if they really think they're training to failure. If you truly push a set to the limit you can't do multiple sets without significantly dropping the weight.
stevecollins33 wrote:
I have read that protein synthesis is complete in 48 hours, meaning longer periods of rest between exercise episodes are not required. That would equate to three full-body sessions a week, i.e. HIT; or more frequent training sessions using body-split programmes, i.e. HVT.
It would appear, then, as though both schools are not as disparate as it seems in principle.
This I agree with. I train a little more frequently though I don't use split routines. I think one of the reason people don't get optimal results from HIT is because they reduce the frequency too much. I fell for that years ago and got terrible results. Now I do train three times a week, full body. Monday and Friday are to failure, Wednesday is NTF.
I heard somewhere that the key to muscle growth is training every muscle as often as possible without causing overtraining.
So Full body routines done 2-3 times a week work the muscle more frequently than a split routine which may only train a certain muscle once a week, and will not cause overtraining.
Mr. Intensity wrote:
I heard somewhere that the key to muscle growth is training every muscle as often as possible without causing overtraining.
So Full body routines done 2-3 times a week work the muscle more frequently than a split routine which may only train a certain muscle once a week, and will not cause overtraining.
I understand with this, but with a typical, practical full body workout you are limited to 1 or maybe 2 sets per muscle AT MOST which might not be optimal.
I'm training each muscle once every 7-8 days, but typically doing 3-5 sets per muscle which seems to be working well for the moment.
Question for the guys who train HIT 3X week.
How old are you and how long have you been training?
Do you find it difficult making the reps on the NTF day?
Any comments appriciated.
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Mr. Intensity wrote:
I heard somewhere that the key to muscle growth is training every muscle as often as possible without causing overtraining.
So Full body routines done 2-3 times a week work the muscle more frequently than a split routine which may only train a certain muscle once a week, and will not cause overtraining.
I understand with this, but with a typical, practical full body workout you are limited to 1 or maybe 2 sets per muscle AT MOST which might not be optimal.
I'm training each muscle once every 7-8 days, but typically doing 3-5 sets per muscle which seems to be working well for the moment.
1 set of 8 exercises works each bodypart this many times in one workout. Legs - 2, Chest - 3, Upper back - 4, Shoulders - 4, Arms - 4, Abdomen - 6, Lower back - 3.
gdm wrote:
Question for the guys who train HIT 3X week.
How old are you and how long have you been training?
Do you find it difficult making the reps on the NTF day?
Any comments appriciated.
I can only speak for myself but I don't have any problems with the NTF workout. I really think the NTF workouts help with recovery, don't tax you too much and allow you to get in a little more work without overtraining.
What I do on Wednesday is stop at two reps less than I made on Monday's workout. I have found that I have a much better workout on Friday than when I used to train only two days a week, Monday and Friday.
I agree with your comments, especially the comments about frequency.
Do you one set or multiple sets per exercise? Also, what sort of rep range do you use?
Thanks,
Marc
Well I guess I use multiple sets. I like to throw in Dr. Darden's BIG routine every so often which includes multiple sets. But at this point in my training I find that I can't do a good basic workout like Mr. Intensity just posted. I can't just keep adding weight or reps to each workout anymore.
So I keep making progress by using variety with different routines and various intensity techniques. I have a lot of Dr. Darden's books so I have plenty of his specialization routines to choose from. And you can argue that those are multiple set workouts, though maybe not multiple sets of the same exercises.
What I like to do now pick one bodypart to beat the crap out of for two weeks then I switch to something else for two weeks. Then the fifth week I'll do a basic full body work, and I usually don't push those to failure.
Week five is for recovery and "de-loading" as they say. And every 3-4 cycles that fifth week will be a complete week off. Some people may say I'm backing off too often but it really works well for me.
As for reps, I've found this to be a very individual matter. I've seen a lot of differences between people. I personally like 6-8 reps for upper body and 12-15 for lower. My training partner likes 8-12 for everything. It just take some time to figure out what works best for you.
As I understand, the major difference between the two is the volume performed. HIT is based on the logic that more is not better, whilst HVT is based on the premise that more is better. Of course, it is also a fact of nature, that the more one focuses on doing more, the less they can focus on working hard.
Personally, I think that trying every training "method" there is to see which works best for you as an individual is not the best policy. We need to look at the cause and effect relationships involved in proper exercise, and make use of these, regardless of whether it's part of HIT or HVT.
Intensity determines fibre recruitment, so you would be foolish to increase volume at the expense of intensity. Volume, although important for creating a further inroad into strength as we get stronger, does not improve results in proportion to the amount of work performed.
The idea of cause and effect is a good one, but one that is not always true to the "it-works-in-theory" idea. Case in point: The traditional 8-12 rep count in Arthur Jones' classic HIT. Does it work? Of course. Does it work forever? Unfortunately, no.
Same with intensity; very hard to measure how much "work" you put into something--too subjective.
While I am neither a personal trainer nor an expert in fibre types, it seems to me that the 8-12 rep range would work for most, but NOT EVERYONE. Some guys will do better with higher reps; SS/SB guys push for lower reps and longer times under load/tension. Does it work for them? Yes, it does. Does it work forever? In spite of what SS/SB proponents say, IMHO it does not.
With SS/SB, you DO get stronger, at least on the machines (safety factor and all that) but do you get BIGGER? That is debatable. Same with any programme; it WILL work but only insofar as you gradually adapt to it, such as the higher volume programmes.
Therefore, while I would NOT chop-and-change to EVERY programme, I do think it necessary to experiment and find out which type of rep range, volume, et. al. will suit you, then have at it until you adapt. After that, change it up when needed. Major changes may not be necessary, but in order to slightly disrupt the problem of homeostasis, I believe that some change will do your body good.
I agree with your comments, especially the comments about frequency.
Do you one set or multiple sets per exercise? Also, what sort of rep range do you use?
Thanks,
Marc
Well I guess I use multiple sets. I like to throw in Dr. Darden's BIG routine every so often which includes multiple sets. But at this point in my training I find that I can't do a good basic workout like Mr. Intensity just posted. I can't just keep adding weight or reps to each workout anymore.
So I keep making progress by using variety with different routines and various intensity techniques. I have a lot of Dr. Darden's books so I have plenty of his specialization routines to choose from. And you can argue that those are multiple set workouts, though maybe not multiple sets of the same exercises.
What I like to do now pick one bodypart to beat the crap out of for two weeks then I switch to something else for two weeks. Then the fifth week I'll do a basic full body work, and I usually don't push those to failure.
Week five is for recovery and "de-loading" as they say. And every 3-4 cycles that fifth week will be a complete week off. Some people may say I'm backing off too often but it really works well for me.
As for reps, I've found this to be a very individual matter. I've seen a lot of differences between people. I personally like 6-8 reps for upper body and 12-15 for lower. My training partner likes 8-12 for everything. It just take some time to figure out what works best for you.
Great post. Looks very well thought out.
IMO, There is no debate. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I like split routines, just as much as I enjoy dr.dardens routines. Both work, but only for a certain amount of time, that should be detrmined by the results you are getting.
I just completed an 8 week HIT routine and the results have been good(including a cleaned up diet).
Thanks for your insight OSAKA. I'm all for experimenting, and I have deviated from HIT principles at times to see if my results would improve.
Taking your example of ideal rep ranges, I understand that different people respond best with different ranges, but this isn't a case in point against cause and effect. As I understand it, the reason why some must perform more or less reps is because of lack of or too much muscle damage, respectively. Therefore, perhaps one could view muscle damage/inroad as an independent variable.
Getting back on to the topic of HIT vs. HVT, clearly we must continue to create damage to cause growth, but if we could establish volume as a cause of muscle growth, the more sets you did, the better it would be. I don't think anyone really believes this.
Sorry to go on a bit, but I want to explain myself as best I can. I actually did a research study for my MSc in which I compared 1 set to failure and 3 sets of 10. As Steve mentioned at the start, the last set was often pretty much to failure, and the weight was increased when 10 reps were reached in the final set. With intensity and inroad pretty similar between groups, the only difference was volume performed. There was no difference in muscle or strength between the groups, so my point is this: if volume per se was important, the volume group should have done better than the single set group.
I heard HVT guys say this but I don't buy it. It's been said a million times, "you can train hard or you can train long but you can't do both". HVT guys are fooling themselves if they really think they're training to failure. If you truly push a set to the limit you can't do multiple sets without significantly dropping the weight.
Or the reps. I don't see what you've done except state yourself that it CAN be done.
You can find numerous examples of trainees gaining tremendous strength and size both from HIT methods as well as HVT methods. Clearly, there are trainees that benefit greatly from each of these methods.
I am convinced that a trainee can gain good strength and size from HIT methods, because I have seen it done. My time with HIT hasn't been very long yet, but I've been extremely pleased (even surprised) with my results thus far.
I am also convinced that there are many trainees that can gain good size and strength from HVT. There are numerous examples of this as well.
Personally, I don't enjoy performing large numbers of sets with a sub-maximal effort. I don't enjoy spending lots of days and lots of time in the gym. I enjoy trying to turn myself into a focused, 2-ton Gym Ogre once every 2-4 days... and then spending the rest of my time eating right, resting, and psyching myself up for the next push into new rep\poundage territory. It just seems to work for me and I tend to make much more rapid improvements than with other methods.
Perhaps this is due to a personal compatibility with HIT. Perhaps it's due to mistakes I've made with other methods in the past. Who knows? If people enjoy HVT and gain from doing it, they should go for it. Not my cup of tea, but I'm more interested in how well my methods work for me rather than their popularity at any given moment.
Mr. Intensity wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Mr. Intensity wrote:
I heard somewhere that the key to muscle growth is training every muscle as often as possible without causing overtraining.
So Full body routines done 2-3 times a week work the muscle more frequently than a split routine which may only train a certain muscle once a week, and will not cause overtraining.
I understand with this, but with a typical, practical full body workout you are limited to 1 or maybe 2 sets per muscle AT MOST which might not be optimal.
I'm training each muscle once every 7-8 days, but typically doing 3-5 sets per muscle which seems to be working well for the moment.
1 set of 8 exercises works each bodypart this many times in one workout. Legs - 2, Chest - 3, Upper back - 4, Shoulders - 4, Arms - 4, Abdomen - 6, Lower back - 3.
I like that routine - I may give that a try for variation some time. It's been a while since I used full body routines. I'd probably throw in a couple of isolation moves or alternate them...especially for arms and calves.
From my personal encounters, I have found that longer rest is best as I was four reps short this week on my leg press,
Ok guys, I've got an issue.
I find that when I go about seven days between work-outs I get solid progression.
But, this week-end I had a touch of the flu, my brother came into town and my wife had to work and I missed my split and couldn't get to it until Monday night. Instead of making progress (which I have every week), I either was barely the same or lost ground.
The same is true on my main exercises, which got derailed a week because of the same flu. I was able to hold pretty much even, but I'm not sure I understand why if I shorten a cycle down to five days I don't make any where near the progress and if I spread the cycle out past eight days to nine or ten or fourteen I lose a bit of ground.
Various comments:
In terms of TUL you could actually have very similar numbers for someone performing, as quickly as possible, 3 sets of 10 reps vs. someone performing slowly 1 set of 10 reps.
There seems to be a very extreme view towards HVT by those that perform HIT. Performing a 20 rep squat workout is the same volume as doing 4 sets of 5 reps.
Wasting time, pushing light weights for too many sets seems stupid to ALL lifters that know what they are doing.
Sorry, but intensity is not measured by how hard you feel you worked. In the real world intensity is measured by the percentage you are lifting relative to your max.
You WILL increase your strength level in any exercise by lifting slowly for 8-12 repetitions.
You will not get as strong as you can by lifting slowly for 8-12 repetitions vs. lifting as fast as you can, using less reps, for a few more sets.
It's easier to gain strength than size. It's easier to gain size when strong. Figure out the rest.
One set of an exercise, while possibly being brutal, doesn't translate well to the real world. Doesn't it make sense for a lineman to do multiple sets, using a heavy weight, to build strength and endurance? A game does not consist of 1 play!
If you only perform 1 HIT set always, your fitness level is low. The ability to perform that set multiple times is more impressive and more beneficial from a general fitness perspective.
Most people will get very out of shape only doing a few sets a few times a week. Sorry Mr. Mentzer. Sometimes less is not more. Sometimes it's just fucking lazy.
Doing less can be a downword spiral. You blast the muscle harder and harder, it then takes longer to recover, and before you know it you don't even look like you lift weights. Sorry Mike.
