Discussion in 'Fitness & Nutrition' started by JuggetEQ, May 10, 2005.
haha no fair
And here's a rebuttal from Louie Simmons: http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/ls12.htm
Your opinion is duely noted and I shall file it appropriately.
Dont knock it, till you have tried it.
ok, how is it idiotic?
A physical trainer who trained pro athletes (who also knows kinesiology) told me that HIT is the best. but i dont know i can see the pros and cons in both routines.
well, i am willing to agree to disagree. Lets look at it this way, either way we who work-out, are better off than 80% of this country. And look better.
HIT training for athletes is retarded for reasons listed in the article me and mike posted.
For your average lifter, well it depends on how you apply it I suppose. Some people might see decent results from it.
I mean HIT supposedly can be done in as little as 20 min three times a week.
Might allow an athlete more time to practice their sport...
um... I guess. *shrug*
While there are bodybuilders that followed variations of HIT... don't really know any known powerlifters that has done so.
The article posted in this thread go through why HIT is not good for sport specific training. HIT does not allow a person to train how they are going to play. It only focus on strength endurance and does not work on speed and explosiveness,
I'm not reffering to sport specific weight training.
I'm simplifying it to...
someone works out with HIT and practices said sport... the person would be a stronger and therefore better athlete.
Other forms of weight training take far longer than one hour a week. This could possibly cut into sport training or recovery.
That's the only possible advantage I can see for HIT.
hmm never thought of that, true tho
You should enjoy reading this interview of Sergio Oliva, JuggetEQ.
He talks about his experience with Arthur Jones...
For the average person? I don't think this would be true for elite athletes.
Probably not. No arguement from me.
Anyway... some more HIT flame wars on bodybuilding.com
HIT recommends exhaustion, pre-exhaustion, and negatives. I don't see how recovery under could be fast at all. It'll probably have the slowest recovery time for any method. People under westside who don't really train to failure can recover a lot faster.
Recovery is fast because volume is minimized.
One set only.
And a workout that takes about 20-30 min three times per week.
Compare that to a max effort day ?
Hell, honestly I've tried HIT and one set of benchpress taken to failure with negatives or forced reps I don't find nearly as difficult or taxing as multiple sets of heavy singles or tripples. Negatives or forced reps is also used infrequently under Jones' original principles if I remember correctly. I know Mentzer's Heavy Duty believed forced reps to be done infrequently. Jones' principles emphasized the perils of overtraining when it was still a non issue.
And I'm not saying by any means that HIT> westside or any other system.
Only offering the only possible advantage HIT training may offer if that.
There are reasons why I don't follow HIT. That doesn't mean I think the system is totally lacking of any merits.
Here's an example of Mentzer's heavy duty for those not familiar with it...
day 1 (Mon): chest, delts, triceps
dumbell flyes supersetted with
bent over laterals
lying tricep extension
day 2 (Wed) lats, traps, erectors, biceps
pullovers supersetted with
close grip pulldowns
bent over rows
day 3 (Fri) legs, abs
leg extension supersetted with
1 set of each exercise taken to failure.
Wow, the deepsquatter strength archives has a shitload of articles
Everything in there's good I assume - stuff by Louie Simmons and Dave Tate
It all started back in the early seventies with Arthur Jones of Nautilus fame. Arthur's chief mission, of course, was to sell equipment. His marketing plan was brilliant. My interpretation of his plan was that in order to sell his equipment (which for the day was quite expensive) he had to create a religion for the masses. To create a religion he needed 1) churches, 2) disciples, 3) a bible, and 4) clergy.
A scientist (Ellington Darden) wrote his bible, and (much later) a strength coach named Matt Brzycki put the Ten Commandments from that bible into lay language. The Ten Commandments are presented below. Then he paid a bunch of guys to follow the gospel (their test results were later incorporated into the bible). Later, a chosen few of them became his disciples.
The churches came next (Nautilus gyms sprang up all over the place... most are dead now, their respective flocks having flown the coop upon realizing that they were not making it to the promised land quickly enough -- in my humble opinion). His clergymen (gym owners) LOVED Arthur because he had really neat looking equipment and a way for them to rustle their clients in the front door and out the back real fast by convincing them that one set to failure was "the way."
interesting. i agree with this as far as using machines, or slow training not working, but otherwise, the 'general' HIT principles seem very west side-ish..
intensity - check
attempt to continually increase weight - check
reach failure in x number of reps - check
technique - check
strength train=<1hr - check
I'm trying to play devil's advocate for HIT here (admittedly poorly), but frankly I don't know if I would ever follow it again. At least not following Darden or Jones' protocols to the letter.
I think HIT is a poor system for training ATHLETES.
Whether or not its a good bodybuilding system I don't know, I've never used it.
I have tried it while dieting for my show this year, my fat loss slowed but my legs shrunk....ya go hit
never really read much on HIT but it sounds stupid.