Volume vs HIT

[ASJChaotic]

training with volume and still going to failure or training with maximum intensity and few sets?
which method is better? have you tried both?
I have tried HIT but I just don't feel that 4 sets, different exercise each is gonna do much for development
volume training lets me feel the muscle work and feel it being exhausted but are the 2nd and 3rd sets not valuable since
you're using less weight than the first set? 
I'd like to get your take on this also

[The Coach]

Power = 1-3 reps

Strength = 4-8 reps

Hypertrophy = 8-15 reps

Muscular endurance = 15 +

You be the judge.

[ASJChaotic]

Power = 1-3 reps

Strength = 4-8 reps

Hypertrophy = 8-15 reps

Muscular endurance = 15 +

You be the judge.

in that 8-15 rep range which I do agree with by the way
which end delivers more muscle size?

[nodeal]

HIT is awesome a couple months out of the year, but not too good for functional strength if you use it continuously for a long period of time. Overall, i would stick to more traditional methods, not doing 10 second reps.

[YoungBlood]

We have more of these kinds of threads than we do of the "Who Should Have Won The Olympia But Didn't" threads....

With that being said, all programs work. And all programs work effectively for what you put into them. But you have to manipulate the volume, intensity, rep range, tempos and other factors as well.

HIT will not work as well as people claim, should you start off doing it as a beginner that doesn't even know how to use proper form. But if you've been working out for a year and know how to generate intensity into every set and every second of that set...cutting back your volume from an Arnold style workout, to a Metzner workout will work...

[/nutshell]

[Bluto]

its not about reps it's about sets.

[YoungBlood]

its not about reps it's about sets.

Really?

So what happens if you do Squats with a 321 Tempo for 6 reps (4 sets worth)...then 6 workouts later you do 4 sets of squats with a tempo of 222 for six reps? 
Will the results be exactly the same because you are doing the same amount of sets? Please elaborate using as much minute details as you'd like, Super.

[vic86]

great debatable topic,like Arnold and mike mentzer had an arguement in the 1980 olympia, HIT and HVT , both have their pros and cons, but i think muscle stimulation can be attained by having greater volume or by adding variety of excercises and also adding one last failure set*, everyone works differently

is it "1000 experts = 1000 theories"

[io856]

great debatable topic,like Arnold and mike mentzer had an arguement in the 1980 olympia, HIT and HVT , both have their pros and cons, but i think muscle stimulation can be attained by having greater volume or by adding variety of excercises and also adding one last failure set*, everyone works differently

is it "1000 experts = 1000 theories"

There has to some sort of answer to this, I mean they are very different. This is the human body its science there is a way to most effectively gain muscle mass. We just need to find out what that is.

[Montague]

Yes, it is scientific, but bodybuilding is also very individualistic.
Everybody responds differently to different things.
If there was one “magic formula,” then everybody could be a champion bodybuilder.

If you followed EXACTLY the same diet, training, and drug cycle that Arnold did back in the 70’s, you would still not look EXACTLY like Arnold did.

Genes, biomechanics, body frame/structure, responsiveness, etc. are at least a little different in everyone.

It’s about finding those things that work best for you.
Hence the conflicting opinions on what works best.
When a veteran trainer tells you HIT or whatever works best for them, it probably does – for them.
Other things may (and do) work better for other people.

[nodeal]

Yes, it is scientific, but bodybuilding is also very individualistic.
Everybody responds differently to different things.
If there was one “magic formula,” then everybody could be a champion bodybuilder.

If you followed EXACTLY the same diet, training, and drug cycle that Arnold did back in the 70’s, you would still not look EXACTLY like Arnold did.

Genes, biomechanics, body frame/structure, responsiveness, etc. are at least a little different in everyone.

It’s about finding those things that work best for you.
Hence the conflicting opinions on what works best.
When a veteran trainer tells you HIT or whatever works best for them, it probably does – for them.
Other things may (and do) work better for other people.

exactly.

[jpm101]

Three reps can do for you what 20 reps will not. And vice versa. The trick is to find which works best for you. There is no guaranteed rep range that might give you muscle size, strength of both. Guy's have gotten very strong using 15 to 20 reps. Others have obtained very large muscle size using 3 reps.

It's not so much the amount of sets in a given training session, but the amount of total reps accomplished during that session. Comparing 3X3's (9 total reps) to 10X3's (total 30 reps) is quite a difference. But it still is only 3 reps per set. It is the tonage lifter in any given workout. And that tonage should be increase each workout. Either by adding a little more weight or doing one or two more reps each time on a lift the next workout.

Everything can not be blamed on bad genetics if progress is slow, or none at all, after so many years of training.That is a worn out excuse, used by too many BB'ers. Any one new to BB'ing should know by 6 to 12 months what works the best for them and them only by This can require trying  new programs and experimenting a bit here and there. But always keep applied logic in mind.  All with  regard to a solid combo of workouts, diet, supplements and recovery time. Who cares what Mr. Billy Big Balls of 2005 does in a workout. If his training style does nothing for you than than forget about it. Good Luck.

[vic86]

Three reps can do for you what 20 reps will not. And vice versa. The trick is to find which works best for you. There is no guaranteed rep range that might give you muscle size, strength of both. Guy's have gotten very strong using 15 to 20 reps. Others have obtained very large muscle size using 3 reps.

It's not so much the amount of sets in a given training session, but the amount of total reps accomplished during that session. Comparing 3X3's (9 total reps) to 10X3's (total 30 reps) is quite a difference. But it still is only 3 reps per set. It is the tonage lifter in any given workout. And that tonage should be increase each workout. Either by adding a little more weight or doing one or two more reps each time on a lift the next workout.

Everything can not be blamed on bad genetics if progress is slow, or none at all, after so many years of training.That is a worn out excuse, used by too many BB'ers. Any one new to BB'ing should know by 6 to 12 months what works the best for them and them only by This can require trying  new programs and experimenting a bit here and there. But always keep applied logic in mind.  All with  regard to a solid combo of workouts, diet, supplements and recovery time. Who cares what Mr. Billy Big Balls of 2005 does in a workout. If his training style does nothing for you than than forget about it. Good Luck.

great explanation

[buffbong]

couple of points everyone is diffrent but i it is safe to say most natrual bodybuilders will benifit from basic routines such as three movments for big bodyparts and two for small ones and work each intensely.

mentzer never said that hit meant only doing one work set for each exersize. he said he did not think you needed more to stimulate the muscle. also he said no amount of reps or sets is best but the precise amount for you is best. meaning if you need two sets for a exersize to benifit most or even three for it. he may not agree you need 9 working sets for chest but im sure he would agree that it alot more rational than doing 20 sets.

[Vince B]

Why don't you people approach this question like a philosopher would? See if you can distill any complete explanation or theory from what you know or what is written here.

Doing what works for you in NOT a theory or explanation. I hope this helps.

From my anecdotal observations I see hundreds of guys blasting away in gyms and getting very little growth out of all that hard work. Seems to me most here do not know what they are talking about. I doubt they would know the truth if it was presented to them because they have too many set ideas that are probably false.

Everyone here is an expert but can they generate maximum hypertrophy in themselves or anyone else?

There IS a theory that explains muscle growth. There is also a technology that helps best apply that theory. They are two different things but most mix the two and get confused.

HIT is false, by the way. There is no doubt about that.

[YoungBlood]

Why don't you people approach this question like a philosopher would? See if you can distill any complete explanation or theory from what you know or what is written here.

Doing what works for you in NOT a theory or explanation. I hope this helps.

From my anecdotal observations I see hundreds of guys blasting away in gyms and getting very little growth out of all that hard work. Seems to me most here do not know what they are talking about. I doubt they would know the truth if it was presented to them because they have too many set ideas that are probably false.

Everyone here is an expert but can they generate maximum hypertrophy in themselves or anyone else?

There IS a theory that explains muscle growth. There is also a technology that helps best apply that theory. They are two different things but most mix the two and get confused.

HIT is false, by the way. There is no doubt about that.

When presented with sound advice that actually does work, people do not seem to agree with it. For whatever reason it seems as if it's because FLEX (the mag, not Steele) doesn't agree with it. FLEX has been presenting the same garbage for decades, and for decades we've seen far too many people spinning their wheels in gyms gaining pretty much nothing by following their methods on a routine basis.

[Montague]

FLEX has been presenting the same garbage for decades, and for decades we've seen far too many people spinning their wheels in gyms gaining pretty much nothing by following their methods on a routine basis.

Yes.
I also tried training while wearing construction boots and sunglasses, and it made absolutely no difference.

[YoungBlood]

Nonononono,

You have to use the boots and glasses at the same time you have your workout partner spray on water to look like sweat.
None of it works without the bottle of fake sweat.

[Montague]

True.
But I think another missing component was the Harbinger gloves.

And I’ll have to look it up to be certain, but I think my #6 meal was supposed to be 6 oz. of skinless chicken breast with a ˝ cup of rice. I was doing 4 egg whites and broccoli.

WTF was I thinking?

[YoungBlood]

You just read the wrong year of advice. They're doing the chicken these days.
Back in '89 it was egg whites in broccoli. If you were in those days still, you'd be ripped. But since this is the 21st Century, you're no longer ripped at 2% body fat and 297lbs while following FLEX's 1989 advice.

[Montague]

The epiphany manifests.

[ASJChaotic]

in FitnessRX they say that a bodybuilding type workout which to them is (10 sets of 10)
releases more testosterone than strenght or speed workouts 

[Viking11]

It isn't a vs, its a continuum, with extremely brief HD consolidation on one end and extremely high set (Nubret or Michalik) on the other.  As to what works, think of the bell curve, there is a small number of individuals at each end with the vast bulk in the middle. Most will respond to med sets, but remember to progress in weight/intensity   as much as you can.

[dyslexic]

The muscle demands a reason to grow. The stimulus must be timed accordingly and must also be appropriate. Muscles have absolutely no idea where you are working out or what kind of dumbells you are holding.


The muscle only compensates (over-compensates) when it needs. Unfortunately, this is not as often as we would like. Surely there is an objective science to bodybuilding--unfortunately (again) nobody knows exactly what it is. If they did, everyone who was interested would achieve a degree of success.


Failures are much more prevalent than successes in this world. You must obtain the most scientific approach and apply your theories consistently. If you are fortunate enough to succeed, you will also (at some point) experience what is called "diminishing returns"


Bodybuilding in its truest state is much like martial arts; a lifetime endeavor.


When all is said and done, it seems only empirical data will suffice. Ironic. No?

[RC Money]

I like both, but I'm always inclined to overtrain. I feel for a natural to pack on permenant dense muscle volume is best especialy in the long haul. But when ever you are short on time and still want a good workout do hit, when i do hit i do a few more exercises though.
Maybe try volume 3 months, hit one month, to see/feel the difference and you can judge according to your own body.

also unless i'm doing strenghth training for the 3 big lifts, i always leave some in the tank till the last set of each exercise, going to failure on lighter set defeats the point for me. and on strength lifts i do the same just that i do three sets of the final weight instead on one so i go to failure but not beyond on these.