HIT vs. volume weight training

[Swole_2112]

What do some of you guys (and gals) think of HIT vs. volume training. I know both Dorian Yates and Metezer were advocates of a couple of warm-up sets, then one very intense set to failure, and the proceed to the next movement. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, believed in training in volume, multiple sets of high intensity. What do some of you other there think? What's your approach and experience?

[RagingBull666]

HIT is only good for heavy AAS users who are at their peak and not looking to gain more. It's an over rated and bullshit theory!! This concludes today's public announcement!! SS, RB

[Cynical Simian]

HIT is only good for heavy AAS users who are at their peak and not looking to gain more. It's an over rated and bullshit theory!!That sums it up. HIT is essentially a peaking phase; even though the sets are maximal in the sense that you can't do any more reps at the particular weight (since you're going to failure), the volume is so low that you're not going to drive any further progress with it unless you're a complete novice. But, of course, it's not as good as an actual peaking phase because the "training theory" behind it is such a mess that people doing it don't have a clue why anything is happening or how to program to make progress.

I'm not exactly a fan of the training theory behind bodybuilding volume training (organization by body part, throwing a ton of different exercises at body part X, etc.) either, but at least the basic principle of multiple work sets to drive progress is correct (and far superior to HIT).

[Killer]

Somewhere in between :hi5:

HIT is so low in volume, yet a "traditional" BB routine can be very high. Who needs 24 sets for chest?

[T-Cake]

Ok, I'll be the dumbass to ask "What is HIT?"

KThanksBye :)

[bigdamray]

Ok, I'll be the dumbass to ask "What is HIT?"

KThanksBye :)

High Intensity Training. 2 warmup sets and 1 all out set per bodypart per week.

[T-Cake]

High Intensity Training. 2 warmup sets and 1 all out set per bodypart per week.
Hmm, okay. I knew HIIT for cardio but HIT threw me for a loop.

Interesting... so would HIT be more of a conditioning, non-growth thing... or do y'all think it's totally worthless altogether???

[RagingBull666]

Hmm, okay. I knew HIIT for cardio but HIT threw me for a loop.

Interesting... so would HIT be more of a conditioning, non-growth thing... or do y'all think it's totally worthless altogether???

Cakes, IMO totally worthless. Yates popularized it when he said that's how he trained. What he failed to tell folks was that it was only done during a maintenance phase of his cycle and not a growth phase.

It can work, to some degree, as a maintenance part of a workout but it is flawed. As Ray said, two warmups sets and then an all out set. Well, what is all out? One rep, four reps, 8 reps? If it's all out then how can it be more than one rep? In addition how can you only train one body part for one set per week and even expect to hold what you have.

In truth Yates used his "warmup sets" as part of his workload so he, in fact, was doing three sets on each bodypart per week. Even at that it's weak but the lazy people jumped on it. You could do a HIT workout in half an hour and be out of the gym. SS, RB

[IliekFude]

I think their gona give ya dif results. Depends on what yr after for results. Hit done for true full heavy weight style will give ya more strength while volume will give ya (big suprise here) more volume in yr physique but not as much raw strength.

[Curious George]

Like Simian said, there really is no theory behind it. It was Mike Menzter selling Arthur Jones Nautilus equipment that popularized it. How the hell can you get substantial volume for hypertrophy on one set? If you watch Yates, he trained a million "warmup" sets and then his one set to failure. By the time his one set, he had done several of substantial loading.

It's bunk caker. Anything will work for a detrained person, but IMO, it is not a good way to build muscle or strength.

[T-Cake]

Thanks for the education, guys :) I see that the plan itself is vague to begin with; once the details come out, it seems silly in general. Maximum results for minimal effort just doesn't happen.

[Swole_2112]

I guess I have my answer. lol.

[the truth]

I used HIT for years and got great results.

Some of the explanations above are misinformed. You do one all out set for each EXERCISE, not for each BODYPART. Once a week is used by some, but since one of the variable parameters of HIT is frequency, at some point many practitioners make their training less frequent (I did each body part every 11 days). At some point many practitioners do reduce their total sets per bodypart, but this is for advanced HIT trainees, is usually done by restricting work for a bodypart to one exercise, and usually involves adding more warmups. Intensity within the context of HIT is usually defined within a range of 4RM to 12RM, but Jones had Oliva going for 15RM on squats after pre-exhausting IIRC.

While it's true a lot of HIT trainees do so many warmups that it looks like a high volume routine, many do not, nor is it recommended in Heavy Duty (Mentzer's take on HIT). A typical chest workout might be:
Hammer bench: 1 warmup set; then 1x8RM
Incline smith: 1 warmup; then
PecDeck 1X6RM Immediately followed by Incline smith 1x5-6RM

BTW, Dorian trained Heavy Duty for increased mass, not just for maintenance. Seen him train when he was still growing (92), and my long-time training partner trained with him a time or two. He did add more warmups after his injuries though, but it was still recognizably a Heavy Duty routine.

IMO the main problem with HIT is after doing it for years going to the gym causes anxiety, and you wind up taking just too many damn breaks in training. I do more sets now using moderate intensity (higher reps and no training to failure).

[MrMuscle]

I trained following the book "High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way" for a year
Amazon.com: High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way: Mike Mentzer, John R. Little: Books (http://www.amazon.com/High-Intensity-Training-Mike-Mentzer-Way/dp/0071383301)

The training in it self was extremely fun, and i got mad strenght gains in those particular super sets he advocates. BUT, the size gains were not there. And when i changed to another training program, my strenght gains didnt follow me. So i was not stronger in anything else then the super sets used in the book.

For chest for instance you warmed up on an incline press machine. Then you did a set of pec dec flyes to absolute failure. Meaning failure in concentric, eccentric AND static. Then immedialtely hit the incline chest press for reps until total failure there as well.

If you want to do a HIT'esque training routine, i would recommend DC-training. You still do the 1 set, but you use rest pauses and extreme stretching. I cant even imagine doing high volume training any more.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that if i ever were in a position where i didnt have time to train alot. I would have gone back to the mike mentzer training. I would have kept my mass, and the training sessions were like 15 minutes long.

[mr sinister]

when im training-i do 1-3 warm up sets of 10 reps and then 3 sets of 3-6 reps max weight per exercise..im intrested to know if you think thats any good for adding size ?

[vancouverrules]

That sums it up. HIT is essentially a peaking phase; even though the sets are maximal in the sense that you can't do any more reps at the particular weight (since you're going to failure), the volume is so low that you're not going to drive any further progress with it unless you're a complete novice. But, of course, it's not as good as an actual peaking phase because the "training theory" behind it is such a mess that people doing it don't have a clue why anything is happening or how to program to make progress.

I'm not exactly a fan of the training theory behind bodybuilding volume training (organization by body part, throwing a ton of different exercises at body part X, etc.) either, but at least the basic principle of multiple work sets to drive progress is correct (and far superior to HIT).

Well now that you say that, what would you recommend? I've always found the bodybuilding organization by body part concept leaves the reps in a given week allocated in a weird way - should more of that be squats or rest for example, rather than chest, biceps, delts etc.

When I am getting in a rut I'll just go looking for training splits to try them. It seems many of the most successful ones use dl's and squats and other "leg" workouts to do much of the work for upper body as well.

[Cynical Simian]

Well now that you say that, what would you recommend? I've always found the bodybuilding organization by body part concept leaves the reps in a given week allocated in a weird way - should more of that be squats or rest for example, rather than chest, biceps, delts etc.

When I am getting in a rut I'll just go looking for training splits to try them. It seems many of the most successful ones use dl's and squats and other "leg" workouts to do much of the work for upper body as well.I tend more toward what most would see as a "strength training" approach, which incorporates some of the stuff you touched on.

The main differences from a "bodypart X once per week"-style routine are that you're organizing your training around a fairly small number of lifts (back squats, deadlifts, a bench press, an overhead press, another pull from the floor, maybe some assistance stuff like front squats and jump shrugs, and some arm isolation stuff), doing a number of them twice per week (maybe thrice in the case of squats), organizing your training by lifts rather than body part, and (unless you've been training like this for a long time and can handle a ton of volume) varying the volume of the workouts over the course of the week. The last one is essential, and it's what people are missing when they say "I can't believe you squat 2/3 times per week; my legs are fried after leg day". This sort of approach only works if you give yourself a good ramp-up (instead of starting at your maxes), don't training to failure on every set, and are spreading your volume out over the course of 2-3 workouts on a particular lift rather than trying to cram all of it into one session. So, for instance, if you're squatting twice per week, you'd have one workout that's fairly high volume and intensity (say, 5 sets of 5) and another that's lower in volume or intensity (say, ramping up to 1 set of 5 or doing 4 sets of 10-12). Or if you're doing Westside, you'd have your ME and DE days. (By the way, when I say 'intensity', I'm referring to %1RM, not to some subjective sensation of working hard.)

As for concrete suggestions, the way a lot of the guys on here got into this sort of approach was through madcow's 5x5 (link below) or Westside. I'm in the former category, but if you want help with Westside stuff, there are a ton of really knowledgeable powerlifters on the board.

Madcow Training - Table of Contents, 5x5 Programs, Dual Factor Theory, Training Theory (http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/table_of_contents_thread.htm)

I'd also suggest two of the books that were mentioned in the recent thread on the topic, Starting Strength and Practical Programming, both by Mark Rippetoe and Lon Kilgore.