Author Topic: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle  (Read 3590 times)

stevefdl

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Bee in my Bonnet
Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« on: September 13, 2009, 06:32:27 AM »
I recently wrapped up an interview with a proponent of High Intensity Training (HIT), Gordon LaVelle. I wanted to share a few of Gordon's thoughts. Gordon is a published HIT author (Training for Mass), and has articles on BB.com as well.

Gordona LaVelle's approach to HIT looks more like a Dorian Yates style workout then a Mike Mentzer workout.

Interview with Gordon LaVelle

Please understand that these are not my words or views. I interview a wide spectrum of lifters, from Powerlifting fed presidents to natural Mr. Olympians.

----------------------------------------------------------



Quotes from the Interview, Part 1.....

"The big change came in the mid-to-late 80’s when I read an interview of Mike Mentzer in one of the bodybuilding magazines. I can’t recall which magazine it was. Of course he didn’t outline the entire high-intensity training theory in the interview, but he mentioned a few reasons why a single set, performed with the highest level of intensity, will produce the same or better results than the typical volume-oriented bodybuilding workout. His rationale was too compelling for me to ignore. As a result, I began to ease into it. Because I had gotten decent results from doing lots of sets, I had a hard time letting go of that approach."

"I definitely belong more to the Yates school. His resembled more of a traditional bodybuilding workout: visiting the gym several times per week, training a few body parts each day, and performing two or more exercises per part."

"I seem to recall someone mentioning that HIT was put forth as a ripoff money-making scheme, and nothing more. I don’t know where this big flow of money is, and I don’t seem to recall ever spending any money on any HIT-related enterprise. I had a Mentzer book once that someone loaned me. As for my own book, I wrote it not expecting to make a red cent. What I’ve gotten out of using HIT, however, has been of immeasurable value: Better results, in less time, with no burnout and no injury."

"One thing you want to do with HIT is make each and every set as difficult as possible. You can accomplish this without using excessively heavy weights. Going slow and making every rep count, really feeling the weight, is important. If I were to name a single most-important beyond-failure technique, I’m inclined to say a slow negative rep at the end of a set."

"Regarding HIT’s detractors, the majority do not even know what the theory is. They just know they’re against it. This makes the whole issue rather interesting. For example, I’d be willing to bet most of these people couldn’t describe what string theory is either. But you probably don’t see them in Internet forums, railing against string theory and calling its supporters names. So obviously this touches a nerve. But why? No one is forcing them to do it. If someone goes in the gym, trains a certain way, and gets a certain result, why would you even care?"
B

Moen

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2863
  • Getbig!
Re: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2009, 10:50:30 AM »


First HIT guy that is this big (with yates obv)

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2009, 12:15:43 PM »
Good reading.

I think with HIT you have to tweak to your own temperment-I like the idea of the Yates version then i would also prefer hitting a muscle twice weekly, which they don't do. So it's worth trying variations to find what works.

Essentially i've evolved in to something of a modified HIT routine now, i find it more efficient.

Just consder volume and intensity as polar opposites on a continuum, that work in inverse proportions-the greater the intensity applied to each set, the less sets are required. I don't like the extreme intensity required of classic HIT and find it hard to put all the neeed work in to one set (and probably same with Yates) so instead spread out the work over a few more sets while applying intensity that is in between volume and classic HIT-much higher intensity than volume and less extreme than one-set classic HIT.

slaveboy1980

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thought is the arrow of time; memory never fades.
Re: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2009, 03:07:05 PM »
I recently wrapped up an interview with a proponent of High Intensity Training (HIT), Gordon LaVelle. I wanted to share a few of Gordon's thoughts. Gordon is a published HIT author (Training for Mass), and has articles on BB.com as well.

Gordona LaVelle's approach to HIT looks more like a Dorian Yates style workout then a Mike Mentzer workout.

Interview with Gordon LaVelle

Please understand that these are not my words or views. I interview a wide spectrum of lifters, from Powerlifting fed presidents to natural Mr. Olympians.

----------------------------------------------------------



Quotes from the Interview, Part 1.....

"The big change came in the mid-to-late 80’s when I read an interview of Mike Mentzer in one of the bodybuilding magazines. I can’t recall which magazine it was. Of course he didn’t outline the entire high-intensity training theory in the interview, but he mentioned a few reasons why a single set, performed with the highest level of intensity, will produce the same or better results than the typical volume-oriented bodybuilding workout. His rationale was too compelling for me to ignore. As a result, I began to ease into it. Because I had gotten decent results from doing lots of sets, I had a hard time letting go of that approach."

"I definitely belong more to the Yates school. His resembled more of a traditional bodybuilding workout: visiting the gym several times per week, training a few body parts each day, and performing two or more exercises per part."

"I seem to recall someone mentioning that HIT was put forth as a ripoff money-making scheme, and nothing more. I don’t know where this big flow of money is, and I don’t seem to recall ever spending any money on any HIT-related enterprise. I had a Mentzer book once that someone loaned me. As for my own book, I wrote it not expecting to make a red cent. What I’ve gotten out of using HIT, however, has been of immeasurable value: Better results, in less time, with no burnout and no injury."

"One thing you want to do with HIT is make each and every set as difficult as possible. You can accomplish this without using excessively heavy weights. Going slow and making every rep count, really feeling the weight, is important. If I were to name a single most-important beyond-failure technique, I’m inclined to say a slow negative rep at the end of a set."

"Regarding HIT’s detractors, the majority do not even know what the theory is. They just know they’re against it. This makes the whole issue rather interesting. For example, I’d be willing to bet most of these people couldn’t describe what string theory is either. But you probably don’t see them in Internet forums, railing against string theory and calling its supporters names. So obviously this touches a nerve. But why? No one is forcing them to do it. If someone goes in the gym, trains a certain way, and gets a certain result, why would you even care?"

lol...

slaveboy1980

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thought is the arrow of time; memory never fades.
Re: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2009, 03:17:08 PM »
alot of bullshit..i read the interview in the link and if you actually look at the 'science behind' (lol) HIT (in its extreme forms...) it is def not supported by studies.

i could go on but i have had this discussion 100s of times so can't be bothered to destroy this drug user, who doesnt know jack shit about the scientific studies he is talking about.

now..let me say im no 'high volume' advocate...but the extreme 'HITters' are full of shit.

dyslexic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7676
  • baddoggy
Re: Interview with HIT proponent Gordon LaVelle
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2009, 04:02:43 PM »
Why does the word "dogmatic" come to mind?