Getbig Bodybuilding Boards > Training Q&A
Volume or HIT? Yes, I bought it up.
oldtimer1:
This training board is dead. On the training log at least someone is reading my posts by the nearly 250K views.
The Scott:
--- Quote from: IroNat 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: IroNat 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Humble Narcissist on July 29, 2020, 12:16:07 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
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..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version