It is the LAZY MAN'S WAY TO TRAIN. Why would you INTENTIONALLY do as LITTLE as possible, risking UNDER-TRAINING, rather than do more VOLUME? Your chances of OVER-TRAINING are MUCH less probable than those of UNDER-TRAINING.
HIT is slang for "I'm lazy and just don't want to put the work in that I'm capable of...I like trying to get more out of less"
You couldnt be more wrong, i mean u could try but i think this is about as wrong as u can possibly be.
Iv worked with higher volume, moderate volume, and if a good diet/work ethic is applied i made sum progress.
But now i am on a HIT style routine i do not think i have worked harder in shorter time periods ever.
I have carried out leg session in 1/2 an hour including warm-ups and stretching and have had people walk up to me and wer surprised i hadnt been training for hours, b/c i looked so completely wiped out. I just told them i did extended set for 3 exercises on quads and 1 for hams and i was dunzzo!!
Too many times in the past wen i did more volume i would leave thinking i had worked hard b/c id beat targets etc, but in essence i had taken 2 min breaks between sets and had done lots of sets....maybe squatting a weight 6 times wen now i am forcing myself to do it 12.
I think the people in this thread who believe HIT can work are not dismissing the effects of volume on some trainers, but it seems weird that volume trainers are however dismissing the effects that HIT can have on some trainers.
Yes i feel volume can work, but i hope that HIT will work better for me.
You shouldnt just put the shutters down and have such closed minded opinions of things.
davie