Author Topic: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.  (Read 1313 times)

oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13428
  • Getbig!
Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« on: July 18, 2020, 08:31:08 AM »
Seems every personal trainer I meet or listen to online is solidly in the HIT camp. Makes sense. Train a client for 30 minutes and be done with them. There are very few personal trainers that want to be with a client for 90 minutes every day. Not a recipe to make money. This is what bought up this age old topic again. I listened to a successful personal trainer from California on youtube. He made the argument that for the majority of people HIT made the most sense for results. He argued that the genetic drug champs could train with either method and would be successful.

In my teens I was heavily influenced by Arthur Jones and then later by Mike Mentzer. I have been training with either one or two work sets per exercise forever. Not exactly forever but for over 40 years. While I made good gains through the years I often wonder if I would have been better off with volume. Using a few sets doesn't give you the massive pump that volume does. Many HIT advocates will say a pump has nothing to do with building muscle but I believe they are wrong.

If high intensity was the magic bullet we would all be training with sets of single reps because that's the most intensity anyone can generate. I believe the muscles gained through lifting is  mainly the result of improving muscular endurance. Not to be confused with aerobic endurance even though that is a component of it.  Which would improve your chest and triceps better?  One set of full range dips with 25lbs plate to exhaustion once a week or doing dips for 5 sets of bodyweight three times a week? 

Some of the draw backs of HIT is exhaustion both physically and mentally.  It really can destroy you if you are truly dedicated to the cause. Only so many times can you bang your head into a wall and say you enjoy training.  Bill Pearl spoke extensively about this. He was fond of saying do not do a set to failure. Complete every rep even if you have to lower the weight. He said training longevity is important and if you have to take days off constantly due to exhaustion where is the longevity? Lee Haney famously said, "Stimulate don't annihilate."

I read an excellent article by a guy who trained with Danny Padilla. He was bitten by the HIT protocol. He wrote Danny generally did 5 sets of 12 with the same weight. The first couple of sets were no where near failure. Set four it was difficult to get 12. The last set would be failure. Failure could hit 8 rep or say 10. When it hit around 12 the weight would raised. Sometimes just completing the five sets at a faster pace was an increase of intensity.

Am I saying HIT has no value? No, I trained that way for many decades. I feel it has kept me looking young and no I don't have a circus mirror.  ;D  It has kept me in shape and strong too with a decent natural physique. Not as good as my youth but aging happens to us all.  One of the major draw backs I feel are the injuries. You can't grind away for decades with what is heavy weights for your structure without damage. My forearms are slightly curved from years of lifting. Two physical therapists pointed that out to me.

Every time I try volume it feels like I'm wasting time because I'm not turning blue trying to get that last rep in.  I know one draw back from volume is that you will lose strength.  I remember when I used volume as a 19 year old experimenting with it that all my one rep singles showed a drastic downfall. However my muscular endurance was up. I know now if I trained with a guy who did four or five sets per exercise I probably would be sucking air because I'm not use to training that way.

Any thoughts on this with being argumentative?  ;D

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2020, 02:55:13 PM »
Most people who say they train using HIT don't really do HIT.  What they do is a set until positive failure (concentric reps).  But going to concentric failure is not HIT.

Mentzer did the REAL HIT.  Going to concentric failure and beyond.  Going beyond failure is HIT.  Way beyond.

What is REAL HIT for example with chest?  First you warm up and this may take a few sets to get to your work weight.  Mentzer did warmup sets.  Warmup sets don't count as work sets for HIT.

1) First you pre-exhaust doing a set of db flyes or pec dec to (concentric) positive failure. The flyes don't involve the triceps as much as pressing.  Better yet, use one of the original Nautilus machines, the one with the pec dec and vertical bench press combined so you can go right from one exercise to the next easily.  That's what the Nautilus machines were designed to do but hardly anyone ever used them this way.

2) Immediately with no rest you do bench presses to (concentric) positive failure, then you do assisted forced reps (need a spotter) to failure, then more negative reps (spotter needed) to complete failure...complete, utter, paralysis!

That's HIT. 

Now, how many people want to do that all the time?  Plus you need a spotter to assist you.  Are you going to do two sets like that?  No way!

Did I mention you need a spotter to do HIT?  You need a spotter to assist you with forced and negative reps.  No spotter?  You can't do HIT.

Imagine a personal trainer having their chubby housewife client do that?  She'd never come back.

So, if you think you are training HIT by doing one or two sets to concentric failure you're not.  But there's nothing wrong with doing 1 or 2 hard sets to concentric failure.

I've been doing 2 sets of 8-12 reps lately and I like it.  The first set I'll do 12 and the next set I'll rep out to near concentric failure or actual concentric failure.  Same weight both sets.  I keep a log of my poundages and if I get 12 reps all sets I add weight.  I can do more exercises using only 2 sets and it keeps the volume in check. 

So, what's better, HIT or volume?  No clue.




oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13428
  • Getbig!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2020, 04:29:15 AM »
I trained with pre exhaust for about 15 years. The concept was not created by Arthur Jones but was created by Robert Kennedy in article he published before Jones grabbed the concept. Most of  his machines were not manufactured to use pre exhaust.

There is no definition of HIT. The general accepted position is one or two work sets after warm up to failure. Every one tries to come up with their own version of what HIT means. If you follow the disciples of Darden there are many variations of what HIT means to them. For some it's 4 exercises don every 5 days. Again it's generally one or two sets to failure. Yes, positive failure or like you to say concentric failure. I feel smarter already saying concentric failure.

 Almost all trainers hit failure it's just a matter of how many sets it takes to get there. For volume trainers it might take 4 or 5 sets to get to that positive rep failure set. If you truly take one set to failure it means there is no way you can get the same amount of reps in your second set. That is high intensity training. No, forced reps is not a concept Mentzer always used. 

David Young who trained many times in the gym with both Mentzer and Viator said they used a lot more sets than they wrote about. He counted 15 sets with Viator and many sets for Mentzer.

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2020, 05:53:11 AM »
Sad that I'm the only person to reply to your thread.

I disagree with you on many points but that is why we discuss these things.

Yes, there are many interpretations of HIT.  Of course there are.  But they are not correct.

If your definition is correct then I myself used HIT today when I trained.  I did not.

However, that is not the subject of your post which is what works best, HIT or Volume?

Some of the old timers in the 40s used a lot of volume in their workouts.  The workouts took them 2-3 hours.  Reg Park did upwards of 90 sets!

Clancy Ross also did marathon sessions pre-contest to get definition.

Most of the high volume routines in the mags are pre-contest so they are very high volume.  What they do off contest is less, if they even train at all.

When I first started working out consistently in college I used the supplied original Universal Machine.  Had no instruction so I went through the stations doing a number of sets, adding weight each time, doing as many reps as possible each set. Usually 3-4 sets per exercise, 3 times a week.  I made good gains. 

If you do 2 sets per exercise, the last set to positive failure, that is not so intense that you only workout once a week.  They say drug users can only work a bodypart once a week because they are in a constant anabolic state due to the drugs.  Not so with nattys.

So, take that into account.

I looked at your leg workout on 7/12 and you did 13 sets of upper legs.  That's more volume than I do although i train 3 times a week.  Total sets per week for me is 12-18 sets which is 4-6 sets per workout. 

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2020, 06:41:26 AM »
One thing we didn't establish is "how do we measure success" of volume or HIT?

Strength?  Easily measured.
Size of muscles?  Easily measured.
Looks?  Not so easily measured...subjective.

What is success? 


oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13428
  • Getbig!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2020, 04:13:05 PM »
This training board is dead. On the training log at least someone is reading my posts by the nearly 250K views.

The Scott

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13679
  • I'm a victim of soicumcision!!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2020, 05:56:29 AM »
Most people who say they train using HIT don't really do HIT.  What they do is a set until positive failure (concentric reps).  But going to concentric failure is not HIT.

Mentzer did the REAL HIT.  Going to concentric failure and beyond.  Going beyond failure is HIT.  Way beyond.

What is REAL HIT for example with chest?  First you warm up and this may take a few sets to get to your work weight.  Mentzer did warmup sets.  Warmup sets don't count as work sets for HIT.

1) First you pre-exhaust doing a set of db flyes or pec dec to (concentric) positive failure. The flyes don't involve the triceps as much as pressing.  Better yet, use one of the original Nautilus machines, the one with the pec dec and vertical bench press combined so you can go right from one exercise to the next easily.  That's what the Nautilus machines were designed to do but hardly anyone ever used them this way.

2) Immediately with no rest you do bench presses to (concentric) positive failure, then you do assisted forced reps (need a spotter) to failure, then more negative reps (spotter needed) to complete failure...complete, utter, paralysis!

That's HIT. 

Now, how many people want to do that all the time?  Plus you need a spotter to assist you.  Are you going to do two sets like that?  No way!

Did I mention you need a spotter to do HIT?  You need a spotter to assist you with forced and negative reps.  No spotter?  You can't do HIT.

Imagine a personal trainer having their chubby housewife client do that?  She'd never come back.

So, if you think you are training HIT by doing one or two sets to concentric failure you're not.  But there's nothing wrong with doing 1 or 2 hard sets to concentric failure.

I've been doing 2 sets of 8-12 reps lately and I like it.  The first set I'll do 12 and the next set I'll rep out to near concentric failure or actual concentric failure.  Same weight both sets.  I keep a log of my poundages and if I get 12 reps all sets I add weight.  I can do more exercises using only 2 sets and it keeps the volume in check. 

So, what's better, HIT or volume?  No clue.

I have trained this way and to be honest, it is difficult to keep a training partner because it is brutal.  On the vertical bench press after the pec-dec (which was also done with forced reps and then negative reps with my partner pushing on the "arms" of the machine) I then did as many reps alone as possible followed by forced and then negative reps with the added fun of them pushing down on the bar to add more resistance.

I would be gasping for air and unable to do any more.  Once I recovered I did the same routine for my partner's set.  One guy from work only came over to train once.  When my son began training he tried it with me, once.

I am genuinely SORE for at least a week and often 10 to 15 days.  I took Mentzer at his word.  Occasionally I have tried this way alone but can only make it work by doing "rest/pause" reps after I complete as many reps as possible.  And I do the rest/pause with a strict as possible negative return. 

H.I.T. works well but it does deplete one's reserves completely and I cannot recall any other stye of training that beats the crap out of me with so few sets.  Well...High rep squats and leg presses do it too but in a different way as the weight is relatively light.

I have also done "thick-bar training".  That can be murderous too.  I had to stop after awhile as my elbows started to hurt.  I am not strong on the bench and could only manage (20 years ago and there's no way I could come close now!) a 300 lbs bench press from the bottom position with a bar measuring approximately 2.75" in diameter.  I thought I would die under that thing and I used saw horses to "spot" myself.  Cleaning and pressing with that bar as well as curling and close grip benches for triceps was a real effort, believe me. 

There are plenty of times I think about training like that again and then the reality of my age and health hit me, LOL!    I have also trained high reps for the pump but that gets stale kinda quick as i cannot consume enough calories without feeling fat as a pig, LOL!

Be well gentlemen!

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11222
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2020, 12:16:07 PM »
Most people who say they train using HIT don't really do HIT.  What they do is a set until positive failure (concentric reps).  But going to concentric failure is not HIT.

Mentzer did the REAL HIT.  Going to concentric failure and beyond.  Going beyond failure is HIT.  Way beyond.

What is REAL HIT for example with chest?  First you warm up and this may take a few sets to get to your work weight.  Mentzer did warmup sets.  Warmup sets don't count as work sets for HIT.

1) First you pre-exhaust doing a set of db flyes or pec dec to (concentric) positive failure. The flyes don't involve the triceps as much as pressing.  Better yet, use one of the original Nautilus machines, the one with the pec dec and vertical bench press combined so you can go right from one exercise to the next easily.  That's what the Nautilus machines were designed to do but hardly anyone ever used them this way.

2) Immediately with no rest you do bench presses to (concentric) positive failure, then you do assisted forced reps (need a spotter) to failure, then more negative reps (spotter needed) to complete failure...complete, utter, paralysis!

That's HIT. 

Now, how many people want to do that all the time?  Plus you need a spotter to assist you.  Are you going to do two sets like that?  No way!

Did I mention you need a spotter to do HIT?  You need a spotter to assist you with forced and negative reps.  No spotter?  You can't do HIT.

Imagine a personal trainer having their chubby housewife client do that?  She'd never come back.

So, if you think you are training HIT by doing one or two sets to concentric failure you're not.  But there's nothing wrong with doing 1 or 2 hard sets to concentric failure.

I've been doing 2 sets of 8-12 reps lately and I like it.  The first set I'll do 12 and the next set I'll rep out to near concentric failure or actual concentric failure.  Same weight both sets.  I keep a log of my poundages and if I get 12 reps all sets I add weight.  I can do more exercises using only 2 sets and it keeps the volume in check. 

So, what's better, HIT or volume?  No clue.
Instead of deciding which method is better, why not do both?  Just stagger the workout with a couple weeks of volume and a couple weeks of HIT.  You can also do a Louie Simmons Westside Method type training and do both types in the same week.

oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13428
  • Getbig!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2020, 03:56:16 PM »
Instead of deciding which method is better, why not do both?  Just stagger the workout with a couple weeks of volume and a couple weeks of HIT.  You can also do a Louie Simmons Westside Method type training and do both types in the same week.


The voice of reason. Your are probably right. Train with heavy weights and intensity then cycle a period of muscular endurance training with volume.

pkaz

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2020, 06:16:55 PM »
I will add my 2 cents. I used to have breakfast with Ray Mentzer at Rocky Cola Cafe in Redondo Beach. We discussed everything from training to diet to... As far as HIT. Both Mike and Ray did plenty of sets prior to getting to their "HIT" weight. Ray was strong as hell. So was Mike. Ray had a gym in Redondo Beach called Mentzers Muscle Mill. Watching Ray squat, and Mike too. There were plenty of sets used prior to their big last set..

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11222
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2020, 03:53:28 AM »
I will add my 2 cents. I used to have breakfast with Ray Mentzer at Rocky Cola Cafe in Redondo Beach. We discussed everything from training to diet to... As far as HIT. Both Mike and Ray did plenty of sets prior to getting to their "HIT" weight. Ray was strong as hell. So was Mike. Ray had a gym in Redondo Beach called Mentzers Muscle Mill. Watching Ray squat, and Mike too. There were plenty of sets used prior to their big last set..
Wasn't Ray THE strongest bodybuilder at Gold's in the 80's?  I read he did the full stack on almost every machine exercise.

escrima

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
  • Getbig!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2020, 03:59:03 AM »
I will add my 2 cents. I used to have breakfast with Ray Mentzer at Rocky Cola Cafe in Redondo Beach. We discussed everything from training to diet to... As far as HIT. Both Mike and Ray did plenty of sets prior to getting to their "HIT" weight. Ray was strong as hell. So was Mike. Ray had a gym in Redondo Beach called Mentzers Muscle Mill. Watching Ray squat, and Mike too. There were plenty of sets used prior to their big last set..
yeah but Bodybuilding is show on stage. yes posing in the thong. presentation is everything. Strong he was & his brother Ray with dense muscle but look at Zane. Not so strong or dense but a master at his art. He posed like a king. Attention to detail was missing with Mike & Ray. muscle detail as well as posing. This is just my opinion. Not a Mentzer hater.

The Scott

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13679
  • I'm a victim of soicumcision!!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2020, 09:12:56 AM »
I have done a variation of H.I.T. using high reps.  Genuine Mentzer style is great but it exhausts me like nothing else and I really need rest.  No one will train with me that way. Not even my son.

pkaz

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2020, 10:30:06 AM »
Wasn't Ray THE strongest bodybuilder at Gold's in the 80's?  I read he did the full stack on almost every machine exercise.

Ray was very strong and worked up to some real heavy weights. 600 lb squats very easy...

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2020, 02:15:11 PM »
Ray was very strong and worked up to some real heavy weights. 600 lb squats very easy...

Machine squats?

pkaz

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2020, 04:53:30 PM »
Machine squats?

Saw him do it with a barbell..

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2020, 07:09:13 PM »
Saw him do it with a barbell..

There were guys in the gym I used to train at (drug users) that did sets of 10 with 600 easy.


ThisisOverload

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2020, 11:29:42 AM »
I never was a fan of going beyond failure or doing forced reps, it seems like it caused myself and others i trained with more nagging pains and injuries to the joints.  I used to rupture fibers in my triceps doing forced reps with dips, skull crushers and bench presses.  I think HIT is a good protocol for certain people, but I can't say I'd recommend it to the average lifter.  I would think a more advanced lifter would benefit from it more as they already know their body and need help breaking through the next barrier, so to speak.

What i used many years ago that was similar to HIT, was Max-OT.  It was a bunch of "assimilation" sets and then 2-3 very intense sets to positive failure in a low rep range.  It actually worked very well for me and a few other people I introduced it to.  The only thing I retained from it that I still do today are the assimilation sets; I'll do 3-4 slow controlled warm up sets that are only 3-4 reps while increasing weight, just to let my body get used to a new load, but not tax the muscles.  I mainly do this on compound movements like presses, rows, squats, etc. not really needed for cable flyes and stuff like that IMO.  What this does for me is warm up while keeping a ton of energy left in the tank, so I can do 4-5 working sets with more intensity, which is important because that is where you want the energy to spend.

To answer your question, I would never recommend HIT unless someone needed it to break past a plateau.  I just never found it to work for myself or anyone else, juiced or natural didn't matter.  I've been training seriously for about 20 years now and volume is king, the biggest I've ever been was when i was training high volume in the 10-15 rep range, up to 5 working sets per movement.  I was in the best shape of my life benching 275 for sets of 12 instead of pressing high 300's for a few reps in years past.  I think training heavy helped build my base, but the last 6 years or so i haven't even once tried to do less than 5 reps or go past positive failure, mainly due to training alone and having a ton of nagging injuries.  I look more like a bodybuilder from to 60-70's and that's what i wanted, i stay around 10-12% BF and rarely get over 210 pounds at 5'11".

Now i don't think training for a "pump" is the answer, but i believe there is a happy medium between volume and overload, you need both to an extent.  Even doing high volume I train with intensity and push near failure, but i don't really go beyond what i can do with good form.  I've been using AAS for over 10 years, so that may factor into it to some extend, but I don't use much more than TRT doses these days and I'm built better than I was 8 years ago using high doses.

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11170
  • C'mon man...here's the deal...
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2020, 02:56:35 PM »
But anything works if you're on gear.  Tell me what works if you're not on gear.

ThisisOverload

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2020, 03:39:31 PM »
But anything works if you're on gear.  Tell me what works if you're not on gear.

That's true, but you still hit walls and need to understand training to get through them.  There are a lot of guys on AAS that look like shit.  I would say moderate doses of AAS probably double your response to weight training.  More so if you are into GH/slin.  But again, you still have to understand how to train and eat.  I know a few guys who use AAS and just throw weights around a few days a week, i wouldn't say they look like bodybuilders, but i get your point.

When i was natural i did a lot of volume too, we experimented with German Volume Training for a while.  I got into Olympic weightlifting in my early 20's for a few years, it's a completely different skill set, i didn't look very strong but could C&J a respectable amount of weight.

Steroids make you very strong and big if you eat, but i can tell you the guys i've trained with over the years responded to weight training a lot faster on gear.  For a natural it's a longer path to get big, but i don't think there is a "natural" training program that i've seen that is guaranteed.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11222
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2020, 04:06:20 AM »
That's true, but you still hit walls and need to understand training to get through them.  There are a lot of guys on AAS that look like shit.  I would say moderate doses of AAS probably double your response to weight training.  More so if you are into GH/slin.  But again, you still have to understand how to train and eat.  I know a few guys who use AAS and just throw weights around a few days a week, i wouldn't say they look like bodybuilders, but i get your point.

When i was natural i did a lot of volume too, we experimented with German Volume Training for a while.  I got into Olympic weightlifting in my early 20's for a few years, it's a completely different skill set, i didn't look very strong but could C&J a respectable amount of weight.

Steroids make you very strong and big if you eat, but i can tell you the guys i've trained with over the years responded to weight training a lot faster on gear.  For a natural it's a longer path to get big, but i don't think there is a "natural" training program that i've seen that is guaranteed.
All systems work and all plateau.

ThisisOverload

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2020, 09:40:08 AM »
All systems work and all plateau.

For the most part yes, the body adapts and you have to change the stimulation.  I do believe some systems are better than others and some methods don't work hardly at all.  But i don't want to side track this too much.

oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13428
  • Getbig!
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2020, 11:10:25 AM »
I never was a fan of going beyond failure or doing forced reps, it seems like it caused myself and others i trained with more nagging pains and injuries to the joints.  I used to rupture fibers in my triceps doing forced reps with dips, skull crushers and bench presses.  I think HIT is a good protocol for certain people, but I can't say I'd recommend it to the average lifter.  I would think a more advanced lifter would benefit from it more as they already know their body and need help breaking through the next barrier, so to speak.

What i used many years ago that was similar to HIT, was Max-OT.  It was a bunch of "assimilation" sets and then 2-3 very intense sets to positive failure in a low rep range.  It actually worked very well for me and a few other people I introduced it to.  The only thing I retained from it that I still do today are the assimilation sets; I'll do 3-4 slow controlled warm up sets that are only 3-4 reps while increasing weight, just to let my body get used to a new load, but not tax the muscles.  I mainly do this on compound movements like presses, rows, squats, etc. not really needed for cable flyes and stuff like that IMO.  What this does for me is warm up while keeping a ton of energy left in the tank, so I can do 4-5 working sets with more intensity, which is important because that is where you want the energy to spend.

To answer your question, I would never recommend HIT unless someone needed it to break past a plateau.  I just never found it to work for myself or anyone else, juiced or natural didn't matter.  I've been training seriously for about 20 years now and volume is king, the biggest I've ever been was when i was training high volume in the 10-15 rep range, up to 5 working sets per movement.  I was in the best shape of my life benching 275 for sets of 12 instead of pressing high 300's for a few reps in years past.  I think training heavy helped build my base, but the last 6 years or so i haven't even once tried to do less than 5 reps or go past positive failure, mainly due to training alone and having a ton of nagging injuries.  I look more like a bodybuilder from to 60-70's and that's what i wanted, i stay around 10-12% BF and rarely get over 210 pounds at 5'11".

Now i don't think training for a "pump" is the answer, but i believe there is a happy medium between volume and overload, you need both to an extent.  Even doing high volume I train with intensity and push near failure, but i don't really go beyond what i can do with good form.  I've been using AAS for over 10 years, so that may factor into it to some extend, but I don't use much more than TRT doses these days and I'm built better than I was 8 years ago using high doses.

I really appreciate the input but using steroids doesn't give you real grasp on reality.  Yes, what you said about volume does have some really valid points. Train without the assist and tell me how you look.  I have been training for around 45 years.  I think egotistically I look really good in my 60's and I don't use anything what so ever. Too many trainers now a day claim they are using hormone replacement but using a higher dose than any doctor would  give on a perscription.  Yes, I could start dosing on test and really look great but I choose to train natural instead of achieving drug dependent results.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11222
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2020, 11:23:49 AM »
I really appreciate the input but using steroids doesn't give you real grasp on reality.  Yes, what you said about volume does have some really valid points. Train without the assist and tell me how you look.  I have been training for around 45 years.  I think egotistically I look really good in my 60's and I don't use anything what so ever. Too many trainers now a day claim they are using hormone replacement but using a higher dose than any doctor would  give on a perscription.  Yes, I could start dosing on test and really look great but I choose to train natural instead of achieving drug dependent results.
Only ever go on hormone replacement therapy if you are set to be on it for life.  Coming off of gear is rough for guys in their 20's and 30's, it would be devastating for someone over 50.

ThisisOverload

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2020, 04:44:48 PM »
I really appreciate the input but using steroids doesn't give you real grasp on reality.  Yes, what you said about volume does have some really valid points. Train without the assist and tell me how you look.  I have been training for around 45 years.  I think egotistically I look really good in my 60's and I don't use anything what so ever. Too many trainers now a day claim they are using hormone replacement but using a higher dose than any doctor would  give on a perscription.  Yes, I could start dosing on test and really look great but I choose to train natural instead of achieving drug dependent results.

I understand your point and value your opinion.  I've trained natural and enhanced, so i would think i have a pretty good idea of reality and the ability to compare the two; i've spent almost the same time as a natural as i have on gear.  If you think jumping on TRT would make a big difference for you physically, you would be mistaken.  You need to get into the 300+mg per week range to see real changes.  TRT is much lower than that.  There are very few real legit doctors that will give you more than 200mg every 14-21 days, at least not for real medical use.

I think me being honest about using gear is important, if you think about it, all the training protocols you have read since the 80's were most likely written by current or former gear users.  That's why i believe following the training protocols of certain famous bodybuilders is rather strange.

At the end of the day gear does make a difference in how you respond to training and how fast you recover, but i don't believe there is a particular style of "natural" bodybuilding.  I think a natural just needs to be more consistent, take longer to recover and eat better.