Dorian yates HIT?

[oldschoolfan]

calling arthur jones a  fraud is a bit of a stretch

he designed some great equipment, and his son developed hammer strength

[oldschoolfan]

btw i used to train h.i.t     

i did get stronger, but after awhile it drains you mentally trying to go up in weight and reps every workout

plus two bad injuries. no more h.i.t  for me  moderate weights  mid volume

[Conker]

in the blood and guts video it was not one working set as claimed by dorian. the 'warm up sets' he does are heavy and you can see he is exerting a lot of effort so they're working sets. as said earlier in the thread, he was really doing 3 or 4 working sets pyramiding up in weight to heaviest set.

[stavios]

If they are not to faillure I count those as warmups even if they are heavy

[oldtimer1]

He did warm up sets as needed but one work set to failure. If his is going to use over 400lbs for incline presses he's not going to use that without a warm up. If he felt he didn't need a warm up for an exercise he didn't use it.

A regular bodybuilder might do something like this for chest if using Yates version of HIT:

Flat bench warm up 135-10
Flat bench warm up 225-6
Flat bench warm up 275-2
Flat bench work set 300- failing at 7 reps.

Incline bench warm up 185-6
Incline bench work set 225- failing at 6

Flat dumbbell flies 1 x 10 reps to failure ( no warm up needed)

Dips warm up 6 reps body weight
Weighted dips work set 8 reps to failure with 35lbs plate

[local hero]

in the blood and guts video it was not one working set as claimed by dorian. the 'warm up sets' he does are heavy and you can see he is exerting a lot of effort so they're working sets. as said earlier in the thread, he was really doing 3 or 4 working sets pyramiding up in weight to heaviest set.

He didn't put any real effort into them, if you take the incline ben h for example, he would do less reps with 3 plates than he did with 4

The whole point of progressing the weights is just to get a feeling for the movement and the increase of weight without taxing your self


This way of training definitely works, you have to eat and train very regimented and try and create the same conditions each week to enable your self to track your progress, I still have all my old diaries from when I took this all seriously, sets n reps, food , gear, even if id worked overtime etc

[Mawse]

I use common sense and rotate heavy, intense sessions with more moderate higher volume sessions for training longevity

some days I'll do a single max set of squats with 405 then a death set of leg press and go home.

some days I'll do 8x8 on multiple exercises.

Jeff said it best when he pointed out that the actual training makes fuck all difference, it's the drugs and genetics at the end of the day.

[oldtimer1]

After 6 weeks or so, it's simply a nightmare.
I can't belive someone would train 6 days a week doing that.

You almost get anxious before every workout.
I've been doing this the last few weeks and had to do some light sessions this weeks cause I always fear i'm on the verge of tearing something.

So true. It's really hard mentally to try to increase the weight, the reps or complete the workout quicker.  I would actually feel anxiety prior to workouts remember how hellish going to failure on every exercise was. Even though I have been a HIT guy for over 40 years volume is calling me.  If you do 20 sets a body part with volume you might start with 5 sets of barbell curls for 10 reps for biceps with the same weight. Your first 10 rep set you could have done 18 reps but stopped at 10. Your second you stop at 10 but could have got 15. The third maybe 13 would have been failure. The forth you stop at 10 but could have gotten 12. The fifth you fail at 9.  That's a very effective time proven way to train.

I believe in intensity training but volume has value too. The most amount of over the top wackos belong to the HIT camp.  Almost like a religion.  Their HIT gets so torturous that they only train once every 5 to 7 days with 3 exercises at one extreme.  Just nuts. 

[NelsonMuntz]

With all due respect to everyone in this thread, Dorian was not doing that 1 set to failure per exercise full on until the year he was training for the 1993 Olympia.

I remember reading and article by "him" Peter M back then and he stated up until the 1992 Olympia he was a 2-3 work set per exercise guy and it took him years to work up to the point where he could perform a intense set of his nature.

my POINT IS I see alot of people here writing for example in this thread bench press
1 warm up 135x10
1 warm up 225x 6
1 warm up 315 x4
1 all out work set 450x7 LOL

Yeah thats what dorian can do, the rest of us humans aint warming up with 225/315 inclines/flats or much else for that matter
I have been around gyms on and off since 1986 and can count maybe 15-20 people tops of all the bodybuilders, powerlifters, wrestlers etc who were working with those kind of weights for easy warmups, let alone work sets

[cephissus]

I suspect this whole debate stems from physiological differences.  For a hypothesis, I think people with a higher proportion of fast twitch fiber can get more out of 'one set to failure' than people with slow twitch.  Sort of like how some people seem to stay lean on carbs, while some stay leaner on fats.

Who knows, really , but its just an idea I've had for a while based on some of my experiences.  Once doing 400s with my friend, I noticed he was totally gassed after the first 400.  He smoked me by like 10 seconds.  For the rest of the workout, I beat him every time.

How can you explain something like that?  I see him gasping for breath and looking like death after one 400 (mind you he trains as a track athlete and competes; I didn't run at all at this time).  No matter how hard I run, I simply cannot induce a physiological response anywhere close to that from just a single 400.

While I used to agree with everyone who says 'training style doesn't matter', I've since changed my mind.  I think most training systems are overcomplicated and full of random, unnecessary rules, BUT... Some distinctions ARE important, I think.

For example, whether you do better on high or low volume might be one of them, hence the popularity of this debate.

[The Scott]

HIT can and does make sense for many individuals, especially so with true naturals.   But I suspect it must be tailored to each person's response.  Of course if you're on a buttload of drugs such as any top bodybuilder (or even a middle of the dialysis road competitor) of the last 30 or even 40 years, it's going to work a whole lot better.

PEDs do that you know.  That's why so many chumps become "champs" regardless of training or dieting methods.

[oldtimer1]

I suspect this whole debate stems from physiological differences.  For a hypothesis, I think people with a higher proportion of fast twitch fiber can get more out of 'one set to failure' than people with slow twitch.  Sort of like how some people seem to stay lean on carbs, while some stay leaner on fats.

Who knows, really , but its just an idea I've had for a while based on some of my experiences.  Once doing 400s with my friend, I noticed he was totally gassed after the first 400.  He smoked me by like 10 seconds.  For the rest of the workout, I beat him every time.

How can you explain something like that?  I see him gasping for breath and looking like death after one 400 (mind you he trains as a track athlete and competes; I didn't run at all at this time).  No matter how hard I run, I simply cannot induce a physiological response anywhere close to that from just a single 400.

While I used to agree with everyone who says 'training style doesn't matter', I've since changed my mind.  I think most training systems are overcomplicated and full of random, unnecessary rules, BUT... Some distinctions ARE important, I think.

For example, whether you do better on high or low volume might be one of them, hence the popularity of this debate.

I really like using track comparisons to simplify weight training. Imagine if someone told a 400 meter sprinter to train with a HIT mentality?  Since the HIT guru believes in intensity and specificity of training he will have his athlete do one 400 meter sprint all out every day at training. He will try to beat this time every training session. Just insanity. Might work for a beginner but not for the experienced. Yet this exactly what many weight training HIT gurus suggest for their trainers lifting weights.

I was a 400 meter sprinter in high school and college. Back then it was 440 yards before it was metric.  I too observed individual differences.  I could wipe out most 880 yard (800 meter) guys in the 440 (400 meters) sprint. Add another lap and they would leave me in the dust as I gassed. Same type situation with the milers. While in training I could string several 5:15 minute miles in training but I would get slaughtered by a real miler in the mile. 

Now I would use a sand hour glass to time my runs.

[local hero]

With all due respect to everyone in this thread, Dorian was not doing that 1 set to failure per exercise full on until the year he was training for the 1993 Olympia.

I remember reading and article by "him" Peter M back then and he stated up until the 1992 Olympia he was a 2-3 work set per exercise guy and it took him years to work up to the point where he could perform a intense set of his nature.

my POINT IS I see alot of people here writing for example in this thread bench press
1 warm up 135x10
1 warm up 225x 6
1 warm up 315 x4
1 all out work set 450x7 LOL

Yeah thats what dorian can do, the rest of us humans aint warming up with 225/315 inclines/flats or much else for that matter
I have been around gyms on and off since 1986 and can count maybe 15-20 people tops of all the bodybuilders, powerlifters, wrestlers etc who were working with those kind of weights for easy warmups, let alone work sets

He later went on to state he was doing too much and should have used less sets sooner....

[Simple Simon]

With all due respect to everyone in this thread, Dorian was not doing that 1 set to failure per exercise full on until the year he was training for the 1993 Olympia.

I remember reading and article by "him" Peter M back then and he stated up until the 1992 Olympia he was a 2-3 work set per exercise guy and it took him years to work up to the point where he could perform a intense set of his nature.

my POINT IS I see alot of people here writing for example in this thread bench press
1 warm up 135x10
1 warm up 225x 6
1 warm up 315 x4
1 all out work set 450x7 LOL

Yeah thats what dorian can do, the rest of us humans aint warming up with 225/315 inclines/flats or much else for that matter
I have been around gyms on and off since 1986 and can count maybe 15-20 people tops of all the bodybuilders, powerlifters, wrestlers etc who were working with those kind of weights for easy warmups, let alone work sets

Shouldnt that be 1 all out work set to failure as opposed to a specific rep number, if he sets a target then its not all out, some days he may get 8 or 9.

[goku]

i was a big believer in training to absolute muscle failure, especially in the lower-mid rep ranges so heavy weight would be used.

really failure is just the depletion of energy and ATP, not producing enough to be able to perform another rep.
rest but about 10-20 seconds and you restore some ATP and can bang out another few reps, so have the muscles truly failed?
and without enough high rep sets we're probably not getting enough blood flow in the target muscle either.

hypertrophy is the product of progressive overload, volume, frequency and blood flow.
with low-mid rep sets to failure we're bound to hit a wall, the initial overload in weight won't last but we can still overload with volume and frequency.

i don't think training should be restricted to HIT vs volume, train to failure but not making it a staple and the be-all & end-all of training.
train in the low-mid rep ranges and high rep range, cycling volume, weight/intensity and frequency.

i train some muscles 2-3 x a week,
1 day is a mostly heavy work, reps 6-12 with a moderate amount of volume
2nd day is high reps with a lot of sets and volume, 12-20 reps, still heavy but not heavy enough for me to fail on rep 10
3rd day is the same but with a lot of partial reps/drop sets
i.e. 21's on most exercises

also, i wouldn't confuse high reps with low weight!
just because you do high reps doesn't mean you should be throwing around pink dumbells!

most of the monsters and pro's built a foundation of strength with big weight and low reps, but after that they make sure they get the reps out, high reps but with heavy weight with enough volume to achieve hypertrophy.
it's been done for generations - Arnie, Nubret, Oliva all trained like this as did the generations following like Haney etc

Dorian did more volume than people think, his prep sets which he thought of as warm-ups would be most people's work sets!
but it all added to the overall volume and stress placed on his muscles.
imo this is the best way to achieve hypertrophy.

also another example could be gymnasts, they have some of the most impressive physiques of any athletes. they train with a lot of volume and frequency but little to no failure.
 

[The Wizard]

I trained this way for years and only changed with injury problems... Its the mind set that the volume guys don't understand, and those who claim to train to failure and do 20 or 30 sets are deluded

Its all quite simple - Doesn't really matter which way you choose to tax the muscle enough to grow. HIT or Volume will do it. You just have to damage the fibres enough, get the blood in there, eat clean and big and rest. 

[Donny]

btw i used to train h.i.t     

i did get stronger, but after awhile it drains you mentally trying to go up in weight and reps every workout

plus two bad injuries. no more h.i.t  for me  moderate weights  mid volume

Best advice

[Coffeed]

Two days on. One day off. Two days on. One day off.

[NelsonMuntz]

i was a big believer in training to absolute muscle failure, especially in the lower-mid rep ranges so heavy weight would be used.

really failure is just the depletion of energy and ATP, not producing enough to be able to perform another rep.
rest but about 10-20 seconds and you restore some ATP and can bang out another few reps, so have the muscles truly failed?
and without enough high rep sets we're probably not getting enough blood flow in the target muscle either.

hypertrophy is the product of progressive overload, volume, frequency and blood flow.
with low-mid rep sets to failure we're bound to hit a wall, the initial overload in weight won't last but we can still overload with volume and frequency.

i don't think training should be restricted to HIT vs volume, train to failure but not making it a staple and the be-all & end-all of training.
train in the low-mid rep ranges and high rep range, cycling volume, weight/intensity and frequency.

i train some muscles 2-3 x a week,
1 day is a mostly heavy work, reps 6-12 with a moderate amount of volume
2nd day is high reps with a lot of sets and volume, 12-20 reps, still heavy but not heavy enough for me to fail on rep 10
3rd day is the same but with a lot of partial reps/drop sets
i.e. 21's on most exercises

also, i wouldn't confuse high reps with low weight!
just because you do high reps doesn't mean you should be throwing around pink dumbells!

most of the monsters and pro's built a foundation of strength with big weight and low reps, but after that they make sure they get the reps out, high reps but with heavy weight with enough volume to achieve hypertrophy.
it's been done for generations - Arnie, Nubret, Oliva all trained like this as did the generations following like Haney etc

Dorian did more volume than people think, his prep sets which he thought of as warm-ups would be most people's work sets!
but it all added to the overall volume and stress placed on his muscles.
imo this is the best way to achieve hypertrophy.

also another example could be gymnasts, they have some of the most impressive physiques of any athletes. they train with a lot of volume and frequency but little to no failure.
 

Great post, the bolded especially was the point I was trying to make with people trying to compare their own training(HIT or otherwise) to Dorian's supposed method, hell most of Ronnies first 1-2 warm ups at the beginning of his workout would be most people's work set or max weight for a rep lol

These guys progressed for years to not only get to that point where they can generate that kind of intensity, but to perfect and maintain it for weeks, months and years in end

Eventually their bodies say fuck it, have torn 15 inch left arms  like the rest of us mortals and spend their days talking about how they use to do all this shit while only taking less than 700mg a week

[heenok]

HIT might be good for a totally natural lifter, where heavy weights, progress and intensity is what only matters.

Its notorious that Mentzer was doing a normal volume training. He just figured what people wanted to hear : work less and get more out of it.
Sorry to disapoint it doesnt work like that. Look at Jay or Ronnie trainning. 

[Rmj11]

Yates only did that blood and guts training 10 weeks or so out from a contest. In the off season he did more sets and did not train all out. Even with the drugs he was on that style of training would take a toll on his joints and cns. In the offseason he lowered the intensity and did 3 to 4 hard sets per exercise but they weren't all out.

[Humble Narcissist]

HIT might be good for a totally natural lifter, where heavy weights, progress and intensity is what only matters.

Its notorious that Mentzer was doing a normal volume training. He just figured what people wanted to hear : work less and get more out of it.
Sorry to disapoint it doesnt work like that. Look at Jay or Ronnie trainning.

Just the opposite.  Training to failure is not good for naturals.  Juiced bodybuilders grow on anything.

[pamith]

Exactly. The volume guys are pacing themselves much more than they think. You can't go all out and do that kind of volume.

All that matters is results, if Lee Priest built his 22'' arms with 20 sets of biceps, who am I too judge?

[oldtimer1]

Why make it so complicated? Mentzer and Yates used non taxing warm ups as needed then one or two sets to failure. Nice and simple. Yates sometimes didn't even use a warm up if it wasn't necessary.  People counting his warm ups as work sets are clueless. They are not work sets and they are easy.  No one could take 410lbs for inclines without warming up the joints and muscles. If he is doing four exercises for a body part he might need a warm up for the first two exercises but not for exercise three and four.

Both Mentzer and Yates used typical cadence with decent form but never did slow reps. Yates started using two sets to failure then settled on one set to failure. Mentzer during his prime mainly stayed with two sets to failure. Casey Viator on the other hand during his best ever condition was seen time and time again using volume and plenty of it. 15 sets a body was an everything occurrence once he left employment with Arthur Jones. There are some in the know that said don't believe the Colorado experiment cause he used volume on the side and plenty of steroids. True? I don't know.

[Hypertrophy]

Volume, HIT, whatever works for you, both physically AND mentally. I could never get excited about using lots of sets because I found it boring, so the HIT method, toned down a little, worked for me. I went from a very lean 150 pounds in my late teens to a very lean 185 using HIT after three years. Then I stopped gaining, no matter what I tried. So I figured that was my natural limit and I was OK with it.


I now lift once a week heavy and maintain everything I gained, although my weight fluctuates to as high as 200 pounds because I don't do near anywhere the distance I used to bicycle race at. All this at 5'9" and I'm perfectly happy with the result.


We all know that to get mega muscles requires drug usage, so why bother saying that it's HIT or volume or anything in between? There is no magic bullet for the natural other than an injection.