Is H.I.T an optimal solution for SIZE or STENGHT?

[Conan21]

What do u wants me to expand upon?

It depends what kind of lifter you’re talking about. And even then there are different programs or methods or ideologies or what have you.

With the Dual Factor programs I posted, I think you could work in other body parts quit easily. If your doing chest 2x a week. You could do less demanding triceps work on the day 1 and more demanding on day 2. And throw some shoulders into the mix on one of them. Back width and then thickness on the other 2day rotation or however you choose.

Usually the soviet lifters include the following methods.

Dynamic Effort Method which involves lifting sub maximal weights at maximal speeds

Maximal Effort Method-lifting a maximum load for 1 to 5 reps,"usually singles"

Repetition method involves lifting sub maximal weights to near failure with larger amounts of volume to build hypertrophy.

But the West Side Program is way more involved that just implementing these 3 methods. And there are a handful of concepts that they apply to
each of the above methods.

Explaining all of these in detail and how they fit into the whole program is kind of beyond the scope of this thread and would take a long time. If you read West Side barbell's articles you can learn a lot about the soviet methodology.

But assuming your primarily interested in muscle mass, I would stick to some of the higher volume Dual factor programs. I could also expound a little bit on the Repetition method if you would like? Which deals with building muscle mass.

 

[swervedriver]

Conan please do! I would like to know more about the repetition method and what works the best for gaining muscle mass... It just seems to me that the eastern bodybuilders are much denser than those in the US...

 

[tybolltt]

According to Zatsiorsky and Kraemer, training to failure is the most productive way to build muscle mass. However, with elite athletes training to failure can become difficult due to the amount of weight used, in this case the overall breakdown of the muscle should be met via volume and reduced rest periods.

They do follow up and say that the difference between training to absolute failure and 1 rep short is minimal.

Training to total failure according to Zatsiorsky & Kraemer is the second most productive avenue for building strength, second only to Max Effort Training.

Furthermore, I have yet to see any studies where training with submax reps would produce as much structural breakdown as training to failure, obviously the MUs involved in training to failure are of a greater number. I have however heard what I consider speculation from Louie Simmons & Dave Tate as to whether training to failure was as productive, and that failure when it concerned them could be 1 or 2 reps short of 'real' failure.

Personally I er on the side of the trainers who have trained more elite athletes than any other two people. Zatsiorsky helped build the principles of the bloc countries, and Kraemer has more published studies than anyone I've yet to come across; Kraemer is co-author of the new edition of TSAPOST, and the second NSCA text references him in almost every chapter.

Conan, I hope you don't take any of the above the wrong way, I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread more than most I have read in the last year or so. I would like to see some science though if you do have it, I haven't done much real time research in the past year or so.

Oh, and asynchronous coding occurs when low threshold fibers are skipped in recruitment order, this somewhat debunks the size principle, but not totally.


Very much looking forward to further discussion.

 

[Conan21]

tybolltt

If you refer to Vlads book "Science and Practice of Strength Training"
page 15 discusses Dual Factor Training.

These are models that many of the eastern block countries which you are referring to have used and it most certainly does not invlove training anywhere near failure. It would be impossible to do. Heres an old thread I had on 2 factor model training program

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15593&highlight=DFT

As far as principles for building mass refer to page 102 and also 208 of Vlads book.

he discusses 'Submaximal effort-Repeated Effort Method".

 

[tybolltt]

Your referencing the first editoin of Zatsiorskys book. Here are Zatsiorky's most current recommendations.

Dual Factor Training Page 13: 'The immediate effect of a training session is characterized by the joint action of two processes: fitness gain and fatigue. Ahtlete preparedness improves because of fitness gain and worsens because of fatigue....For most crude estimations, it is assumed that for one workout with an average training load, the durations of the fitness gain and the fatigue effect differe by a factor of three'

Page 82 of the new version states that: 'It is a common belief that the maximal number of repetitions in a set is desirable, but not necessary, to induce muscle hypertrophy'

We are talking about MAX hypertrophy right?

Page 84: illustrates the size principle in figure 4.10. In this illustration it is clear that training to failure recruits larger MNs, and fast MUs as opposed to submaximal training.

Training more fast MUs would lead to greater hypertrophy no?

Page 85: When the repeated effort method is used with a specific aim to train the MUs the highest in recruitment order....the athlete should lift the weight with sincere exertions to failure (maximum number of times).

By training high threshold MUs wouldn't you be training more fast twitch fibers? Fast twitch fibers being larger fibers of course.

Later on Page 85: With this method, the final lifts in which a maximal number of MUs are recruited are considered most useful....If an athlete can lift a barbell 12 times but lifts only 10, the exercise set is worthless for the training of the MUs that are highest in the recruitment order.

I'm using the above quote to illustrate that the Repeat Effort method (failure) is the second best method for training strength, this is also stated on page 86


For recommendations a la Zatsiorsky on how to induce maximal hypertrophy on page 161 table 8.1 it states that:

The goal is to activeate and exhaust working muscles.
Intensity should be from 5-8 to 10-12
Rest intervals should be short 1-2minutes
Rest intervals between workouts should be long 48-72 hours.
Three or fewer muscle groups (split system) should be used.

In the text above table 8.1 it states that 'several excercises (usually from 2-5) for the same muscle group are employed during a single training unit.

Flushing: excercises for the same muscle group may alternate; excercises for various groups do not alternate.
Training volume should be large; text pg 161 'up to 20-25 sets per muscle group may be executed in a workout'.


There are places in the book that contradict the above stated recommendations, but the logic that supports contradiction is solid EG: if rest intervals should be between 48-72 hours it would be inappropriate to train two days in a row, however, splitting the body into parts negates the need for 48-72 hours worth of rest. So, we could train Chest/Back Monday, Legs Tuesday, Shoulders/Upper Arms Wednesday, Thursday would be a day off, Friday would pick back up at the begining of the cycle, and after training Shoulders/Arms again one would take another day off.


So the above is somewhat of a hodgpodge of what is in Zatsiorskys book, but I took zero libertys with the above stated information. I hope this clears up any misinformation.


I think in the end we agree on more than we disagree on. I suppose I agree with you, DC, and Phil on a multitude of levels, DC for his intensity, you for your volume recommendations, Phil/you for your frequency, HOWEVER, I will say almost all of this flys out the window when training for strength and it's related qualities.

Conan, I really appreciated this thread, and I certainly await your response.

If you refer to Vlads book "Science and Practice of Strength Training"
page 15 discusses Dual Factor Training.

These are models that many of the eastern block countries which you are referring to have used and it most certainly does not invlove training anywhere near failure. It would be impossible to do. Heres an old thread I had on 2 factor model training program

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15593&highlight=DFT

As far as principles for building mass refer to page 102 and also 208 of Vlads book.

he discusses 'Submaximal effort-Repeated Effort Method".

 

[Conan21]

tybollt

I don't think anything I said in this thread disagrees with what you just posted about Zat??

what point are you disagreeing on?

with the dual factor program fitness gain is moderate but long lasting but the fatigue effect is short in duration. None of these programs involve training to failure and these have the primary goal of 'Strength'. I was making a personal statement saying that these are primarily power programs but because of the volume some of them work good for adding size too.

I never said anything bad about training to failure. I just said failure for bodybuilding, It should be defined at or shortly after the forced decrament (relative failure).

 

[tybolltt]

You said that elite lifters never train to failure, I was simply counter pointing that when max hypertrophy is concerned elite atheletes do absolutely train to failure.

Great thread man.

I don't think anything I said in this thread disagrees with what you just posted about Zat??

what point are you disagreeing on?

with the dual factor program fitness gain is moderate but long lasting but the fatigue effect is short in duration. None of these programs involve training to failure and these have the primary goal of 'Strength'. I was making a personal statement saying that these are primarily power programs but because of the volume some of them work good for adding size too.

I never said anything bad about training to failure. I just said failure for bodybuilding, It should be defined at or shortly after the forced decrament (relative failure).

 

[tybolltt]

I just think we disagree on what failure means. In Zats text he says that training to failure is the most efficient avenue to muscular hypertrophy, and the second best avenue to muscular strength second only to Max effort training.

I feel that he defines failure more precisely than you do. Failure being absolute, so obviously not negative failure, but positive failure, where another rep might not be accomplished, but should be attempted.

He also states that Max effort, Repeat Effort, and SubMax effort training can be used in the same meso cycle, but that training is more productive when they follow each other in sucession.

Like I said, I feel we agree on more than we disagree on.

I don't think anything I said in this thread disagrees with what you just posted about Zat??

what point are you disagreeing on?

with the dual factor program fitness gain is moderate but long lasting but the fatigue effect is short in duration. None of these programs involve training to failure and these have the primary goal of 'Strength'. I was making a personal statement saying that these are primarily power programs but because of the volume some of them work good for adding size too.

I never said anything bad about training to failure. I just said failure for bodybuilding, It should be defined at or shortly after the forced decrament (relative failure).

 

[Conan21]

My Points

*Strenght does not always reflect size
*Olympic lifters don't train to failure
*Strenght programs such as dual factor programs are far better
for strength than HIT programs and they don't train to failure ever.
*There is nothing wrong with training to failure for bodybuilding but should be defined at or near the forced decrament, especially demanding exercises like benches, squats, overhead presses, etc. (I was trying to convey that guys at west side barbel/Soviet lifters don't train to failure like Mike Mentzer or Dorian Yates would)

As far as training to failure being the second best for strength. thats way to basic of a statement. Strenght for curls? rows? triceps? Take a group of a High School kids and have half of them do a few sets of bench and squat to failure and and then put the other half on a Dual Factor Perodization program and there will be no comparison as to who gains more strength. Hands down the the DFT group will experience far more strength gain.

If you want to really get technical you have to read alot more than just Zats book. His main focus is power and strenght and just gives very basic guidlines for bodybuilding. There is a lot of other factors that deal with Kinesiology. If you read some of Scott ABell's articles he touches on alot of the finer points. Actually his whole book is just a bunch of science and concepts and doesn't really show you how to apply any of it and you have to look else where to see how people are using these methods.

 

[tybolltt]

*Strenght does not always reflect size.

We agree

**Olympic lifters don't train to failure.

We don't seem to agree here. When an olympic lifter needs to put on size (rarely obviously) he would resort to using the repeat effort method, being failure.

**Strenght programs such as dual factor programs are far better
for strength than HIT programs and they don't train to failure ever..

Dual Factor is not a program, just an approach to it. If strength is the only goal, training to failure is less productive, but not unproductive. Training to failure is great for learning a movement, and for recruiting more MUs. It would train MUs that are never touched with sub-failure training, unless we are talking about ME, in which case reps are almost always less than 5; by training to failure you get to train high threshold MUs at higher rep ranges.

**There is nothing wrong with training to failure for bodybuilding but should be defined at or near the forced decrament, especially demanding exercises like benches, squats, overhead presses, etc. (I was trying to convey that guys at west side barbel/Soviet lifters don't train to failure like Mike Mentzer or Dorian Yates would).

Failure as defined by Zat as the last rep which could not be accomplished. Two reps short of failure is defined as a useless set.
We agree on this point; failure can be counter productive when it comes to strength, especially if it deters from frequency. In fact, I'd venture to say that if your training for strength ONLY, then one should never consider going to failure, unless the mesocycle is dedicated to hypertrophy, and followed by a strength specific mesocycle.

*As far as training to failure being the second best for strength. thats way to basic of a statement. Strenght for curls? rows? triceps? Take a group of a High School kids and have half of them do a few sets of bench and squat to failure and and then put the other half on a Dual Factor Perodization program and there will be no comparison as to who gains more strength. Hands down the the DFT group will experience far more strength gain..

It's the second most productive MU stimulator compared to ME training. As for strength specificity, training to failure would be less productive. You give a great example with the high school kids. I would guess that if you were training with max weights 1-5RM, for every excercise you'd probably fall apart pretty quickly.

*If you want to really get technical you have to read alot more than just Zats book. His main focus is power and strenght and just gives very basic guidlines for bodybuilding. There is a lot of other factors that deal with Kinesiology. If you read some of Scott ABell's articles he touches on alot of the finer points. Actually his whole book is just a bunch of science and concepts and doesn't really show you how to apply any of it and you have to look else where to see how people are using these methods.

Truth be told I have yet to read any of Abell's stuff, I will order the book tomorrow and get started. Thanks for the recommendation.

My points.
*training to failure is the best way to break down muscle fiber
*training to failure has it's place in strength training
*elite athletes when in need of hypertrophy do indeed train to failure.


What I would like to know, is how come bodybuilders end up with less type 2 fibers after years of training. It blows me away that bodybuilders have type 2 fibers comparable in number to long distance runners. LOL.

I think in the end everyone should spend more time under a heavy bar, heavy being 1-5RM.

 

[Conan21]

wow..you seem to really be trying to bust my balls here. I think you understood what I meant by those points.

OK I agree with on you failure. Here is my point. HIT programs put way too much emphasis on the weight factor and get more caught up in the numbers than working the muscles alot of the time and put too much emphasis on the failure part. There should be no forced reps. If you think you got another one left but not sure got ahead and try and if you need a little touch to get the last one than OK. But if you know your not gonna get it and are deliberately doing forced reps thats not good.

I was saying that yes the weight is important but working the muscle is the main objective so using a weight that allows for good form and also paying attention somewhat to feeling the muscle and using a little bit of volume as compared to one set would work better for building muscle. Protein degradation of muscles is what its about right?

So for a basic example, If i'm doing overhead tricep extensions. It would be better to do say 4-5 sets as apposed to the HIT style of 1 set.

Would you agree with that?

 

[doug1]

What I would like to know, is how come bodybuilders end up with less type 2 fibers after years of training. It blows me away that bodybuilders have type 2 fibers comparable in number to long distance runners. LOL.

this is addressed by abel with what he call's slingshot training, which consists of extended times off of say 2-3 months with absolutely nothing like some of the pros after the olympia. conan can probably better elaborate than me

 

[tybolltt]

wow..you seem to really be trying to bust my balls here. I think you understood what I meant by those points.

Hardly, we agree on everything as it turns out.

OK I agree with on you failure. Here is my point. HIT programs put way too much emphasis on the weight factor and get more caught up in the numbers than working the muscles alot of the time and put too much emphasis on the failure part. There should be no forced reps. If you think you got another one left but not sure got ahead and try and if you need a little touch to get the last one than OK. But if you know your not gonna get it and are deliberately doing forced reps thats not good.

We agree 100%

I was saying that yes the weight is important but working the muscle is the main objective so using a weight that allows for good form and also paying attention somewhat to feeling the muscle and using a little bit of volume as compared to one set would work better for building muscle. Protein degradation of muscles is what its about right?

We agree 100%

So for a basic example, If i'm doing overhead tricep extensions. It would be better to do say 4-5 sets as apposed to the HIT style of 1 set.

1 set is really not a way to train, not the advanced, nor the novice.

I would venture to say HIT is bar non the most ineffective avenue to build muscle.

My last point; continuous training is a must, not training at all is dangerous on a multitude of levels which is far beyond the scope of this thread. If you need time off of heavy volume, I would suggest training twice a week.

 

[doug1]

I would venture to say HIT is bar non the most ineffective avenue to build muscle.

What would you classify DC training?

 

[tybolltt]

What would you classify DC training?

It certainly isn't volume training, and it is intense. HIT is HIT, either Arthur Jones, Viator, Mike M, or Dorian all had variations of this training. I would say DC training is highly intense training, but it is not HIT in anyway. I would venture to say that Dorians training wasn't HIT either, it certainly wasn't 1 set to failure.

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

It certainly isn't volume training, and it is intense. HIT is HIT, either Arthur Jones, Viator, Mike M, or Dorian all had variations of this training. I would say DC training is highly intense training, but it is not HIT in anyway. I would venture to say that Dorians training wasn't HIT either, it certainly wasn't 1 set to failure.

Thank god tybolltt, because nothing rankles me more than all the HIT guys throwing me underneath their umbrella. I categorically disagree with alot of the HIT guys beliefs (such as their obsessive compulsiveness about overtraining). The HIT crowd see's anything that is considered lower volume and want to own it in their repertoire--I dont count warmup sets....maybe i should like everyone else does and scare them off

 

[Moen]

Damn good thread here

You need to post more often need2bhuge, and you too tybolltt

Would you kill me if I told you I'm the one recruiting HIT-jedi's to 'go check out that dc training stuff' with the well known consequences dogg ? :st:r-wars

 

[Future]

HIT has it's points that are good:

1. low volume
2. high intensity
3. training to failure
4. Brief sessions

Most programs can work for SOMEONE at least for a while. I would recommend HIT for beginners that are ready to step into a method of training to failure on a M-W-F scheme.

I have tried pretty much everything. HIT has it's place just like other programs. It is not a solid program for intermediates and advanced even though the same points may be similar.

And I personally dont like the factions that develop from a style of training. They act almost volatile that their style is the only one that works and everyone on the planet is wrong. THAT IS JUST IGNORANT!

 

[Moen]

You will be the next victim of my (very willing) crew of hit-jedi future

and always remember...it will only take them ONE mouseclick to permanently kill your internetpresence :st'r-wars

 

[doug1]

HIT has it's points that are good:

1. low volume
2. high intensity
3. training to failure
4. Brief sessions

Most programs can work for SOMEONE at least for a while. I would recommend HIT for beginners that are ready to step into a method of training to failure on a M-W-F scheme.

I have tried pretty much everything. HIT has it's place just like other programs. It is not a solid program for intermediates and advanced even though the same points may be similar.

And I personally dont like the factions that develop from a style of training. They act almost volatile that their style is the only one that works and everyone on the planet is wrong. THAT IS JUST IGNORANT!

I totally agree with all the above, another obvious problem is the total obssesion with increasing the weight each workout as though strength were the end result. Everyone knows that strength has a a ceiling to it and comes very, very slowly for the advanced athlete. Powerlifters are NOT bigger than bb's so why this obsession with more weight, more weight, more weight? The muscles especially when given AAS will get much stronger than the tendons and ligaments resulting in injuries(Dorian Yates). It's becomes an ego thing in the gym to lift a lot of weight when the champions of old were stronger than the average person but they weren't freaks about moving a ton of weight, guys like Franco Columbo were the exeption in the strength category, not the rule. I found HIT style workouts don't do a darn thing for me in my 20 years of training, I think I would probably ring Arthur Jones' kneck for all the time I wasted on his stuff as well as his boy ellington darden. Couple of con men making a buck selling workout books to people who don't want to spend any time in the gym!!

btw future, lookin' huge and ripped in the avatar.