Where are the high intensity champions if HIT works?

[Miss Demeanor]

think that has anything to do with the fact olympic lifters are rigorously tested for compounds ranging from steroids down to ingredients found in cold medicines?  and bodybuilders are constantly on mega doses of every drug known to man?

Nope, because I'm not talking about juiced-up bodybuilders. 

But Mr. Magoo:  I understand what you mean about the HIT people.  Some of them do take the "you'll overtrain, woooooo!" stuff to a silly extreme.

[natural al]

Nope, because I'm not talking about juiced-up bodybuilders. 

But Mr. Magoo:  I understand what you mean about the HIT people.  Some of them do take the "you'll overtrain, woooooo!" stuff to a silly extreme.

I'm more convinced right now than any other time in my life that the majority of guys in the gym today are doing 2 things that are totally stopping them from progressing as they could:

1-overtraining, in this I mean half the guys out there could cut down from training 5 times a week to 3, cut thier sets in half up the intesity and take the rest of the week to recover and they would probably get better results, they're not really "overtrained" in the classical sense but they are running along the lines of overtraining.

2-doing useless movements.  c'mon, I see dudes who weigh 160lbs soaking wet and they're doing cable side laterals and dumbbell kickbacks......suck it up pile the plates on a bar and start doing some close grip bench presses as heavy as you can and you'll get alot more out of your workouts, everytime I do cardio I can watch guys train and it's like "why in the hell are you doing that?" I just don't get it.

[natural al]

Lee Labrada was another HIT proponent.

it don't get much better than that, no flaws anywhere.

[MisterMagoo]

i always liked this analogy with HIT training: if you want a tan, do you sit out in the sun with lotion on for an hour or so a day, or do you lay in a fire for 30 seconds once a week?

i powerlift now, and here's the most interesting part. i don't do any forced reps, no negatives, no supersets, no drop sets. if i need any help on a rep the set is over. i do more sets than i ever did before. the end result was all of my lifts shooting up. i used to internalize the "intensity" mantra and did massive amounts of drop sets, burnouts, anything i could to make it hurt. i stagnated like crazy.

these days i leave the gym pretty clear-headed. after a squat workout i can walk around just fine and the next day i'm not screaming in pain. while it may strike some that i'm not "intense" enough any more and i know some people are going to think my workouts are too long (usually the main lift of the day takes me over a half hour all by itself), i'm stronger than i've ever been.

[Bluto]

sounds good. intensity is  WAY overrated.

[myseone]

So many people train high volume, 5 days a week, yet so few build really impressive physiques drug free. How many people at your gym look exactly the same that they did last year, or the year before despite working out with HVT, most of those that make progress are using drugs.

Another point, prior to HEAVY drug use among trainees, most bodybuilders worked out no longer than 3 days a week full body (1940-50).

My point is that the AVERAGE trainee will respond better to infrequent training with low to moderate volume, and higher intensity, something along the line of what Stuart Mc Roberts teaches.

Steriod and other growth drugs changes the body's physiology, thus the rules change.

My stance is: Progressive resistance on basic exercises done 2-4 times a week will produce the best result for MOST DRUG FREE TRAINEES.

Law

that's probably because the oly lifters are training for a sport, and as said above they are tested year round. my point is that they aren't overtraining despite lifting for hours a day with much heavier weights than bb'ers use. if you listen to the HIT acolytes if you workout for more than 45 minutes and are stupid enough to lift two days in a row you'll fall apart.

[myseone]

I agree. Most people focus on putting in doors, painting walls, brining in furniture way before they build the house.

I'm more convinced right now than any other time in my life that the majority of guys in the gym today are doing 2 things that are totally stopping them from progressing as they could:

1-overtraining, in this I mean half the guys out there could cut down from training 5 times a week to 3, cut thier sets in half up the intesity and take the rest of the week to recover and they would probably get better results, they're not really "overtrained" in the classical sense but they are running along the lines of overtraining.

2-doing useless movements.  c'mon, I see dudes who weigh 160lbs soaking wet and they're doing cable side laterals and dumbbell kickbacks......suck it up pile the plates on a bar and start doing some close grip bench presses as heavy as you can and you'll get alot more out of your workouts, everytime I do cardio I can watch guys train and it's like "why in the hell are you doing that?" I just don't get it.

[myseone]

I agree intensity can be abused, something that many HIT advocates don't understand. If you sit in front of the sun at 12 noon, on a clear day, at the equator, with oil on and put a large magnifying glass in front of you that would be very intense, and it would'nt take long to hurt yourself. The higher the intensity of effort the less volume is neccessary, but it does'nt prove that training to failure or beyond is neccessary, I don't think it is all the time.

The bottom line is progression.

Law

i always liked this analogy with HIT training: if you want a tan, do you sit out in the sun with lotion on for an hour or so a day, or do you lay in a fire for 30 seconds once a week?

i powerlift now, and here's the most interesting part. i don't do any forced reps, no negatives, no supersets, no drop sets. if i need any help on a rep the set is over. i do more sets than i ever did before. the end result was all of my lifts shooting up. i used to internalize the "intensity" mantra and did massive amounts of drop sets, burnouts, anything i could to make it hurt. i stagnated like crazy.

these days i leave the gym pretty clear-headed. after a squat workout i can walk around just fine and the next day i'm not screaming in pain. while it may strike some that i'm not "intense" enough any more and i know some people are going to think my workouts are too long (usually the main lift of the day takes me over a half hour all by itself), i'm stronger than i've ever been.

[Bluto]

stuart mcroberts books and articles makes good toilet paper.

[myseone]

How do you currently train?

stuart mcroberts books and articles makes good toilet paper.

[MisterMagoo]

I agree intensity can be abused, something that many HIT advocates don't understand. If you sit in front of the sun at 12 noon, on a clear day, at the equator, with oil on and put a large magnifying glass in front of you that would be very intense, and it would'nt take long to hurt yourself. The higher the intensity of effort the less volume is neccessary, but it does'nt prove that training to failure or beyond is neccessary, I don't think it is all the time.

The bottom line is progression.

Law

you're right, but growth isn't simple addition. it's not like for intensity x and volume y, x + y = growth, where dropping the intensity means upping the volume and vice versa. otherwise you could drop the volume to near zero and go retardedly high intensity or drop the intensity to nothing and lift for 10 hours.

intensity is good, but everything i've read about the HIT principles is just taking it too far. the principles would never work for another sport, i have no idea why people think bodybuilding is so unique. imagine a shotputter going out onto the field and doing three throws with a 40 pound medicine ball then going home.

[myseone]

I agree, never said it was, nothing exists in absolute form. In a gym context I do think that most people waste volume and don't train hard enough, my point being most. In your case I think you have found something that works well.

In my own training I don't max out all the time, and do bring my volume up to the moderate range every now and then.

you're right, but growth isn't simple addition. it's not like for intensity x and volume y, x + y = growth, where dropping the intensity means upping the volume and vice versa. otherwise you could drop the volume to near zero and go retardedly high intensity or drop the intensity to nothing and lift for 10 hours.

intensity is good, but everything i've read about the HIT principles is just taking it too far. the principles would never work for another sport, i have no idea why people think bodybuilding is so unique. imagine a shotputter going out onto the field and doing three throws with a 40 pound medicine ball then going home.

[MisterMagoo]

I agree, never said it was, nothing exists in absolute form. In a gym context I do think that most people waste volume and don't train hard enough, my point being most. In your case I think you have found something that works well.

In my own training I don't max out all the time, and do bring my volume up to the moderate range every now and then.

i think one thing that needs to go away is calling it HIT. progression is good, lifting hard is also good. so is knowing how long to stick around in the gym. but let's be honest here. if you're in the gym for around an hour and you're putting your all into it, there aren't really enough factors going on for any one training method to be so vastly different from another. we're basically talking the difference between doing one balls-out set of 8 or two sets of 5 or 6.

do the one you like, chances are you'll get nearly identical results. the thing that kills me with HIT acolytes is their dogmatic clinging to "intensity" and the evils of overtraining.

[myseone]

Well it's like religion, they all profess to beleive in the true god, but they have diverse beliefs, and they believe everyone else is wrong.

I do think that the HIT advocates can be dogmatic, which turns a lot of people off, at the same time they make some valid points, points that work for many. That being said an hour of truly hard work done progresively is where its at. I think that we are saying the same, thing with minor differences.

As I stated in the first part of this thread; There are competitive bodybuilders that have used HIT with great success, and as a result this method should at least be studied by all intelligent bodybuilders.

Law

i think one thing that needs to go away is calling it HIT. progression is good, lifting hard is also good. so is knowing how long to stick around in the gym. but let's be honest here. if you're in the gym for around an hour and you're putting your all into it, there aren't really enough factors going on for any one training method to be so vastly different from another. we're basically talking the difference between doing one balls-out set of 8 or two sets of 5 or 6.

do the one you like, chances are you'll get nearly identical results. the thing that kills me with HIT acolytes is their dogmatic clinging to "intensity" and the evils of overtraining.

[Bluto]

How do you currently train?

plenty of volume but rarely going to failure

[myseone]

cool, you will use what ever method you feel works best.

plenty of volume but rarely going to failure

[Van_Bilderass]

that's probably because the oly lifters are training for a sport, and as said above they are tested year round. my point is that they aren't overtraining despite lifting for hours a day with much heavier weights than bb'ers use. if you listen to the HIT acolytes if you workout for more than 45 minutes and are stupid enough to lift two days in a row you'll fall apart.

The reason they aren't overtraining lies in the nature of olympic lifts. They aren't grinding lifts and there is no negative portion. Compare a snatch to a deadlift. A deadlift is comparatively a very slow grinding movement that is a hell of a lot more taxing. Even a maximal olympic lift is a very quick movement with no negative portion.

[myseone]

Very good point, the negative portion of a rep is definitely more taxing on the body, and will require more rest days to recover from.

Also just because someone has been successful using a certain method does'nt mean that they couldn't have been better had they trained better, genetics and drugs have strong impact of results.

The reason they aren't overtraining lies in the nature of olympic lifts. They aren't grinding lifts and there is no negative portion. Compare a snatch to a deadlift. A deadlift is comparatively a very slow grinding movement that is a hell of a lot more taxing. Even a maximal olympic lift is a very quick movement with no negative portion.

[Vince B]

In my opinion this thread is intellectually dishonest. Sergio is not an example of HIT. Stuart McRobert's theories are false. There is so much crap re training that it is disgraceful. HIT is false as a theory. Jones is highly intelligent but his influence has not been a good one for training. He is responsible for encouraging brief workouts when in fact the major requirement of large muscles is endurance with heavy resistance. One might be able to build some muscle using various methods but HIT and HST are not ones that will generate much in the way of maximum size. Drugs have just confused everyone completely. What is the test of the truth of these theories? Well, do they work? Answer: for most people they don't work. If people knew how to keep muscles growing they would be growing rapidly. The truth is most of you guys have stopped growing a long time ago.

[pumpster]

i always liked this analogy with HIT training: if you want a tan, do you sit out in the sun with lotion on for an hour or so a day, or do you lay in a fire for 30 seconds once a week?

Who came up with that lame analogy? Pathetic and incorrect.

[pumpster]

sounds good. intensity is  WAY overrated.

Let's see some pics of those guns to back up this wisdom! 



IMO there are various programs including HIT that if done as prescribed will work for a while. No reason to assume HIT wouldn't work. The biggest difference between good programs is psychological appeal IMO; what someone likes better and thus will continue to use plays a big part in long-term efficacy. Really HIT requires a rigour that most can't stomach-nothing to do with results just the turn-off of the training itself.

[myseone]

Sergio used both HIT and HVT training to build his body from what I've read. In fact he has stated in interviews that he found HIT effective. Of course his HVT was effective as well, leading me to beleive that his genetic capacity and drug use made a huge difference.

You say that HVT is the way to go, if this were so Serge Nubret would be one of the hugest guys because his use of volume was legendary (3-5 hours a day of working out). I recently read your thread concerning training, and you seem to advocate training for hours on end, most people will not be able to do this, so it is'nt pratical.

The proof is always in the pudding, there are many HV successes but there a lot of failures, and the same thing can be said about the HIT camp.

What do you suggest?

In my opinion this thread is intellectually dishonest. Sergio is not an example of HIT. Stuart McRobert's theories are false. There is so much crap re training that it is disgraceful. HIT is false as a theory. Jones is highly intelligent but his influence has not been a good one for training. He is responsible for encouraging brief workouts when in fact the major requirement of large muscles is endurance with heavy resistance. One might be able to build some muscle using various methods but HIT and HST are not ones that will generate much in the way of maximum size. Drugs have just confused everyone completely. What is the test of the truth of these theories? Well, do they work? Answer: for most people they don't work. If people knew how to keep muscles growing they would be growing rapidly. The truth is most of you guys have stopped growing a long time ago.

[alexxx]

Sergio used both HIT and HVT training to build his body from what I've read. In fact he has stated in interviews that he found HIT effective. Of course his HVT was effective as well, leading me to beleive that his genetic capacity and drug use made a huge difference.

You say that HVT is the way to go, if this were so Serge Nubret would be one of the hugest guys because his use of volume was legendary (3-5 hours a day of working out). I recently read your thread concerning training, and you seem to advocate training for hours on end, most people will not be able to do this, so it is'nt pratical.

The proof is always in the pudding, there are many HV successes but there a lot of failures, and the same thing can be said about the HIT camp.

What do you suggest?

With volume you need weight. Serge trained too light. Arnold knew it took heavy weights to build a championship physique.

[pumpster]

With volume you need weight. Serge trained too light. Arnold knew it took heavy weights to build a championship physique.

I'd like to think "Alexx" is kidding but each time i realize he's dead serious. Oliva used to be an Olympic weight lifter.

[myseone]

Funny stuff...

With volume you need weight. Serge trained too light. Arnold knew it took heavy weights to build a championship physique.