is HIT effective?

[Macro D]

Originally Posted by Madcow2

Oh I know. I haven't read McRobert's books but from what I have been told he just doesn't want people doing a ton of volume for no reason or thinking copious isolation will produce long term gains (we are all McRoberts fans then). Other people kind of put him in the HIT camp for the volume and recovery thing. I really don't know much more about him or Leistner. They seem rather sane which...doesn't seem too HIT these days. I think McRoberts got brought in above from the Hatfield article which grouped him in with the listing of HIT Jedi.

McRoberts is "HIT" by Hatfield's definition in his article. But his advice is much different than Mentzer/Darden. He is against doing pre-exhaust, and "beyond failure" stuff like negatives and forced reps. He thinks the vast majority of isolation movements are totally useless (unlike Darden and Mentzer).

His take on intensity is that the harder you train in terms of effort, the better the results, but that intensity isn't the goal - increased poundages on the basic movements is.

Same with Leistner, although he uses forced reps in his workouts.

I can tell you guys from experience that I've tried the Mentzer/Darden stuff. I've even gone so far as doing pure negatives on deadlifts - STUPID. All that did was make me extremely sore, and did NOTHING for my gains.

I suggest that when we use the term "HIT" we be clear on which "HIT" we're talking about. Sounds like the big controversy is with Darden/Mentzer HIT, not with McRobert/Leistner HIT. I also think the Mentzer/Darden diet stuff is ridiculous. I agree that we don't need supplements, but we obviously need more protein.

[Evan42]

Originally Posted by Defiant1

I'm not sure how much you really know about HIT (that is not meant as an insult), but it is not just a program. It really is a philosophy. You can't really pick and choose and call your philosophy HIT anymore than thinking Christ was a nice guy makes you a Christian. If one wants to do abbreviated workouts a la McRoberts then fine. But it is not HIT, though HITters like to add in programs with success like DC and some of McRoberts stuff because they add legitimacy.

Thats a good point. Who does get to define what "high intensity training" refers to?

MM would say that HIS definition is the one, and would make a circular reference . i.e.: "HIT means what MM says, because MM says so" And therefore this definition would lump ALL of MM's tenants as part and parcel of HIT.

Perhaps there needs to be a new term to specifically refer ONLY to the concept of working breifly to failure.

I guess this may be why DC tries to distance himself from HIT. Even though the workouts are veeeeeeery similar - Dante probably wouldn't want people to think he goes along with alot of the "other stuff" MM tries to sneak in under the HIT definition.



This is actually a problem with a lot of labels. Who gets to define whether the label applies to something? If I say I'm a christian is that enough - or is there some sort of objective standard? Same goes for "fans" of sports teams. I've met people who say they're Yankee fans... when asked if they can name players, they can't - are they still fans just cause they say they are?

Who gets to define what "HIT training" is, a "Yankee fan" is or a "jew" is? Is a self-applied label enough?

[waynelucky]

Hi Madcow and all,

I see you pretended to miss my other post, when you gave me a personal insult for nothing, is there an apology, are we still friends as I would like to be, as some here take this a bit to serious, if there are people out there that get great results be the HIT programs, who are you to tell them they are not, as there are millions, who have had great results with the HIT programs, yes Ellington’s books go into millions

Originally Posted by Madcow2

Leistner and McRoberts are probably the most mainstream. Hell, Leistner's review is on Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength site.

As for failure and speed - I'm not sure on that one. Failure is basically a point in time 1RM and it's just as slow as a 1RM. I can't see how redlining the nervous system on a slow rep is an advantage in that. Bar speed is maximized by maximum effort which maximizes acceleration during the movement. I've not really seen a case where 'going to failure' was promoted as supperior. Certainly doing speed work and reaching failure can work (or not reaching failure) but the failure component alone being significant - I have doubts.

I am not sure if you have trained anyone, or how you train them, but I thought we got the redlining the nervous system thing sorted, if you train the HIT way, and I mean the real HIT way, you don’t redline the nervous system, you exited it, and the fatigue does not set in, as me and John both told you the CNS issue is very overrate, you should read more of his writings, they are very interesting.

You also say; I've not really seen a case where 'going to failure' was promoted as superior; I know you live in the USA, but if you have not seen going to failure promoted and used as superior, you must live in a small town, or not chatted to many people, then you say; but the failure component alone being significant - I have doubts, then if you have doubts you have not tried it or tried it on people, that means you have not trained anyone, but come on here repeating someone else’s writings, the 5 x 5 thing, and then accuse me of repeating John’s writings, well the D.C.T. program, AND THIS MAY SURPRISE YOU, BUT WAS MY OWN WRITING, THIS IS MINE, YEP GO ON PM JOHN AND HE WILL SAY ITS MINE.

You do not really have to take the first set to failure, but I took all other sets to full failure.

Hypertrophy,
Set 1, 30 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, (which is not always needed) 10 to 20 reps, you drop down weight to your first or second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.

Strength,
Set 1, 20 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, (which is not always needed) which is 5 reps, drop down weight to your second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.

Strength,
Set 1, 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 10 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 5 reps, set 4, (which is not always needed) which is 5 reps, drop down weight to your second sets weights, these are done as fast as possible, and to full failure, and the last rep is lowered nice and slow.

I am a bit fed up with these silly arguments, why cant we al get along, as when you lot come here telling us hitters that are making progress we are not, why don’t you just stick to you own threads, don’t you think that’s fair ??? As ever HIT thread you have to come in and spoil them, now come on, if you are over 40, don’t you think you are being a bit childlike, and need to grow up, then we get the, why do not you HIT people post some photos, so why do not you post some photos of you ??? As I have about 10 photos of fully natural HIT people that I will be posting soon, I wonder if you would like to do the same with people from your 5 x 5 program, or you all pro, whatever program you do, and what about you defiant, it would be nice to see your weeks workout log,

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Originally Posted by Macro D

McRoberts is "HIT" by Hatfield's definition in his article. But his advice is much different than Mentzer/Darden. He is against doing pre-exhaust, and "beyond failure" stuff like negatives and forced reps. He thinks the vast majority of isolation movements are totally useless (unlike Darden and Mentzer).

His take on intensity is that the harder you train in terms of effort, the better the results, but that intensity isn't the goal - increased poundages on the basic movements is.

Same with Leistner, although he uses forced reps in his workouts.

I can tell you guys from experience that I've tried the Mentzer/Darden stuff. I've even gone so far as doing pure negatives on deadlifts - STUPID. All that did was make me extremely sore, and did NOTHING for my gains.

I suggest that when we use the term "HIT" we be clear on which "HIT" we're talking about. Sounds like the big controversy is with Darden/Mentzer HIT, not with McRobert/Leistner HIT. I also think the Mentzer/Darden diet stuff is ridiculous. I agree that we don't need supplements, but we obviously need more protein.

The best way to incorporate negatives is after 1, 2 or 3 normal sets, do some negative reps, they then become hugely productive, I found this out about six months age, as before that I tried them first and one their own, but there was not much joy, Slippy wrote something on this also.

I suggest that when we use the term "HIT" we be clear on which "HIT" we're talking about. Yes that is a great idea.

Wayne

[reflexions]

Originally Posted by Macro D

* Matt Brzycki (strength coach at Princeton University);
* Ellington Darden, Ph.D. (Jones' longtime science advisor);
* Ken Leistner, D.C. (New York chiro who runs a gym there);
* Ken Mannie (strength coach at Michigan State);
* Stuart McRobert (publishes a "Hardgainer" newsletter); View His Articles
* Mike Mentzer (now deceased, former bodybuilder who fabricated his own "Heavy Duty" interpretation of Arthur's disproved tenets);
* Dan Riley (strength coach of the Washington Redskins);
* Rob Spector (keeper of a HIT web site); and
* Wayne Westcott, Ph.D. (a YMCA fitness director)
* Kim Wood (strength coach of the Cincinnati Bengals)
.

Rob Spector is listed. So is Wayne Westcott. As Wayne Lucky does know about HIT quiet abit, I think that you can put 2 & 2 together & get Wayne Westcott = Wayne Lucky.

Personally madcow, I think they are all the same people, as in they all know each other personally.

[craze9]

Originally Posted by Evan42

The empirical proof that you cite would support the conclusion: "HIT doesn't work for everyone." This is a conclusion that I agree with.

The argument I am making is that HIT does work for SOME people in SOME cases (depending on ones goals, etc). That is all.

By switching the argument "HIT CAN be effective for some people" to the argument "HIT isn't effective for everyone" you have successfully committed a 4th logical fallacy.

Dude, stop talking about logical fallacies, because you very clearly do not understand them as well as you think you do. You probably just went to some logical fallacy website and now you start throwing them down in internet discussions all the time, which is a huge pet peeve of mine.

First you misused the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Now you make the mistake of implying that the argument "HIT can be effective for some people" and the argument "HIT isn't effective for everyone" are mutually exclusive, when they are not.

Furthermore, if you concede that the empirical proof supports the claim "HIT isn't effective for everyone," then what are you arguing about? Defiant never made the claim "HIT is never effective for anyone."

Btw, it's "tenet." A tenant is someone renting an apartment. OMG you committed the "I cant spell" logical fallacy!

[reflexions]

wow strong bitchiness

[craze9]

Originally Posted by zpnq

Tae Kwon Do has been around since history began but its nothing compared to current MMA and mauy thai styles of fighting. WHY? Because the later are living (changing when they find somthing that works better) and former is rigid and never changes becuase it beleives its the best ever. This is how i see hit. Hit leaves no room for improvment becuase its allready better than everything out there, its the best ever and most effective.....:/(sarcasium intended), EVERYthing can improve, Thats the problem with it hit it hasnt changed as we have become more knowledgable.

Tae Kwon Do has not been around since history began. It's one of the newest martial arts, codified by a Korean general and largely based on Japanese Karate. Even Karate has only been around for a couple hundred years. The oldest martial arts are Chinese. Tai Chi Chuan and Kung fu.

I agree that Tae Kwon Do is not a particularly effective martial art, but I think you misplace the issue. Tae Kwon Do has become more of a sport than a fighting style (the only martial art that is an olympic sport, besides wrestling). To say that it is rigid and never changes "because it believes it is the best ever" isn't accurate. It doesn't change because there are very clear rules for competing. No one thinks tae kwon do is the best knockdown fighting style (no rational person at least). It has no grappling and minimal hand/arm striking. It being the "best ever" isn't even up for debate, and I don't know where you got that idea.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by waynelucky

TIME AND TIME AGAIN I HAVE TO SAY, YOU PEOPLE THAT DEBATE AGAINST HIT, DO NOT KNOW HIT, BUT THINK YOU EXERTS ON IT.

All pro, I gave you the D.C.T. workout, it was a set plan, I told you exactly what to do, reps 30/15/10 and then you said you gave it a go and it did not work, I then asked you what you did, you said 30/25/22/10, can not actually believe you changed it that much, or at all, so I wonder when you did HIT what you did it like.

Sorry to pick on you but you’re all getting HIT wrong, as you have not got to go to failure all the time the earliest writing I can find of this is in the nautilus bodybuilding book (1984).

Wayne

I did it the way John told me to do it. He created it. I got more muscular endurance out of it with a reduction in speed, power and strength. I got exactly what I wanted out of it. I've got back problems. I used DCT for stiff leg dead lifts. 2 weeks after I stopped useing it my squats started too improve again.

[Macro D]

Originally Posted by all pro

I did it the way John told me to do it. He created it. I got more muscular endurance out of it with a reduction in speed, power and strength. I got exactly what I wanted out of it. I've got back problems. I used DCT for stiff leg dead lifts. 2 weeks after I stopped useing it my squats started too improve again.

Who is John? He created "HIT"?

[Defiant1]

Originally Posted by Macro D

Thanks for the links, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say you are against training to failure?

You asked for some evidence or explanation re: neural fatigue

(that was pretty funny though)

If someone makes the argument that training to failure is *necessary* for muscular growth, then I agree, that's *obviously* b.s.

HIT says it is necessary. As I just posted above, without it, what is so "high" about the intensity? I agree. It is obvious.

Since I've gained using both failure and not-to-failure, I will say again that there is a place for both. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

I don't think there really is a place for it as a POLICY, any more than I think deliberately getting sunburned should be part of someons tanning technique. If it happens, it happens. But to strive for it? I don't agree.

It is basically maximizing neural/systemic fatigue without increasing muscular fatigue. The exact opposite of what a successful program should do.

If it's just pure muscular size, then no, you don't ever "need" to go to failure. However, for strength, going to failure helps speed gains. I base this on my experience as a lifter, the experience of others I've trained with, and Leistner's columns in Powerlifting USA.

I'm not one to doubt an individuals experience, (unless it sounds like total bull****) but what you just said is the opposite of what a majority of strength trainers believe.

That would include (short list):

Siff
Bompa
Pavel
Poliquin
Hatfield
Waterbury
Simmons
Francis
McDonald
Staley

off the top of my head...

[Evan42]

Originally Posted by craze9

Now you make the mistake of implying that the argument "HIT can be effective for some people" and the argument "HIT isn't effective for everyone" are mutually exclusive, when they are not.

Furthermore, if you concede that the empirical proof supports the claim "HIT isn't effective for everyone," then what are you arguing about? Defiant never made the claim "HIT is never effective for anyone."

Btw, it's "tenet." A tenant is someone renting an apartment. OMG you committed the "I cant spell" logical fallacy!

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Both statements can be true. I am only interested in the truth-value of "Hit can be effective". If the statement "Hit isn't always effective" is true, it has NO BEARING on the truth of the first statement. The fact that they aren't mutually exclusive doesn't change anything.

All I have said all along is that HIT has some good points and MAY be effective for some people. If your argument against that statement focuses on how its not effective for ALL people, you are arguing something different.

I don't wanna sit here and argue about what specifically Defiant1 said or not. I do know that there are some people who have said that HIT is of NO value to anyone and insist on saying so in every thread, this is the only thing that i am (was) ranting about.


And yes, my spelling is horrible. So I guess you were right about that. OMG... LOL!!!! ROLF!!!!


p.s. cite my misuse of the ignorance fallacy and correct me please. Unless you realize, after taking a closer look, that I didn't misuse it.
HINT: the statement p is: "HIT CAN be effective for SOME people SOME times". Don't try and sub in YOUR statement for variable "p" then say I misused it.

[Macro D]

BTW, how do you put quotes within a quote? I don't like manually putting in "s for my quotes.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Quote:
"If someone makes the argument that training to failure is *necessary* for muscular growth, then I agree, that's *obviously* b.s."

HIT says it is necessary. As I just posted above, without it, what is so "high" about the intensity? I agree. It is obvious.

WHO said it's necessary? Is there a quote for this stupidity that can be attributed to someone?

As far as how the intensity is "high", I think that's fairly straightforward. The closer you go to failure, the more effort is required as you move towards a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). MVC is the highest "intensity" (effort) possible

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Quote:
"Since I've gained using both failure and not-to-failure, I will say again that there is a place for both. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish."

I don't think there really is a place for it as a POLICY, any more than I think deliberately getting sunburned should be part of someons tanning technique. If it happens, it happens. But to strive for it? I don't agree.

I'll agree to disagree with you then. It has its place.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

It is basically maximizing neural/systemic fatigue without increasing muscular fatigue. The exact opposite of what a successful program should do.

For muscular size, I agree with you. But for strength, it can help.

I should also note that low rep training to failure is USELESS and can only lead to injury.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Quote:
"If it's just pure muscular size, then no, you don't ever "need" to go to failure. However, for strength, going to failure helps speed gains. I base this on my experience as a lifter, the experience of others I've trained with, and Leistner's columns in Powerlifting USA."

I'm not one to doubt an individuals experience, (unless it sounds like total bull****) but what you just said is the opposite of what a majority of strength trainers believe.

I don't think that's true. Leistner is a recognized powerlifting guru and he's pro failure. So is Bob Whelan. McRobert says it can accelerate gains when done properly. Other lifters have documented their results online using this approach.

At the end of the day, I care only about what has worked for me and other lifters in the "real world" not somebody's opinion.

[Evan42]

Originally Posted by Macro D

I don't think that's true. Leistner is a recognized powerlifting guru and he's pro failure. So is Bob Whelan. McRobert says it can accelerate gains when done properly.

Zat also talks about the benefits of training to failure... not all the time and not for every goal - but he does say it can be useful, depending.


I think a lot of the disagreement has to do with what is meant by "HIT". I'm not trying to sound all Clintonesque - pretending I dont know what a word means or anything.

I guess MM would say that in order to call your training HIT, you have to be a dickhead, eat minimal protein, and assume your way is the ONLY way, etc...

However, I do think that a lot of people (myself included) use HIT to just refer to breif workouts to failure, and not much more. Technically, I would consider DC training HIT (thought never to his face) - the training sessions are highly intense... hence: high intensity training. I don't wanna get in a debate about whether XXX is high intense or not, though there are grey areas.

Next thing we'll start arguing about the fine line between 2 distinct sets in rapid succession or one rest-pause set.

[Defiant1]

Originally Posted by Macro D

BTW, how do you put quotes within a quote? I don't like manually putting in "s for my quotes.



WHO said it's necessary? Is there a quote for this stupidity that can be attributed to someone?

Jones, Mentzer, Darden. Necessary for "maximum" results. Mentzers quote is "anything less than an all out effort is a sin against yourself".

Darden (from the Nautilus book)-"muscular failure means that no additional repetitions are possible. It is only by working to this extent that you engage a maximum number of fibers" (which is wrong by the way, all fibers are recruited WAY before failure, in fact with the correct load all are recruited immediately-additional contraction being enabled by rate coding or increased neural firing-you start to shake and it begins to hurt for a reason-your body is telling you to stop. The shaking is partly inefficient neural firing patterns which by the way WILL BE LEARNED IF REPEATED-you "learn" to fail.)

Jones-just do a google search.

As far as how the intensity is "high", I think that's fairly straightforward. The closer you go to failure, the more effort is required as you move towards a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). MVC is the highest "intensity" (effort) possible

I agree. My point is that if failure is shown to not be necessary or even desirable, then you are training no "higher" than anyone else in the gym.

I'll agree to disagree with you then. It has its place.

nuh-uh

I should also note that low rep training to failure is USELESS and can only lead to injury.


I don't think that's true. Leistner is a recognized powerlifting guru and he's pro failure. So is Bob Whelan. McRobert says it can accelerate gains when done properly. Other lifters have documented their results online using this approach.

I'm not sure I follow you. What kind of powerlifter doesn't train with low reps?

Here's why it would be less for strength than size:

The large motor units that one uses for strength are recruited two ways: Speed of movement, or load.

Weightlifters are concerned with the second of course, as maximum speed is not possible with large loads (maximum relative velocity, not force of effort).

So...you use a "threshold" load of say 80% of your 1RM, but you could use any really, the outcome is the same at the end (unless your load is so light as to use only ST fibers-really small motor units).

The kicker is: the large motor units fatigue FIRST during a set they are used in. So it's either small->larger->largest->smaller->smallest for sub-threshold loads, or ALL->smaller->smallest for a threshold load. You seem like a smart guy so you can see where this is going...

when you train to failure for strength, you are actually training the ST fibers in your last few reps, decreasing your ability to maximally adapt to large motor unit efforts

Which would be ok for bodybuilding (if you discount the neural fatigue and other nasties you get from failure training), since bodybuilding is more than just FT training. But why would a strength athlete want this? It would be like squatting then running a 10K to improve your 1rm.

At the end of the day, I care only about what has worked for me and other lifters in the "real world" not somebody's opinion.

I hear that. I can only talk in generalities. I also don't know your training history. I could say "you may have done just as well without it or better" but that could be a load of crap too.

I do know that my strength immediately shot up when I FORCED myself to stop training to failure. I didn't do as policy, but I did it a lot.

Others on the site have reported the same thing.

So you know, I don't really have a problem with someone failure training within the guidelines of a normal program. Example: a power athlete doing 3 + sets of low reps, or even "Tom Platz" style bodybuilding (Mentzer said it-Tom was the hardest training bodybuilder-always to failure and beyond....for up to 30 sets an EXERCISE).

What I am against is STRUCTURING programs to ENABLE failure training; or, cutting volume for one silly shaking set. Saying "hmmm...I just did a set to failure and beyond, better not do more than 1 set 1x per week".

[MKM]

There are many excellent training protocols. I have always trained HIT style with excellent results.

Some thoughts:

- Everybody I know has got excellent results on DoggCrapp Training. That is about 15 sets to failure per week, very similar to traditional HIT.

- Half of the NFL teams and many top colleges train HIT or otherwise non explosively: they are not weak, small, slow or non explosive.

- Most HIT experts don't claim that in order to get stronger it is necessary to train to failure and they don't even claim that HIT is the most result producing program exists. They just say that training to failure is effective and HIT produces as good results as any good program.

- This is what Vladimir Zatsiorsky (former strength coach of Soviet olympic teams) writes in his book, highly praised by Louie Simmons: "To use the repeated effort method, the athlete must lift the weight with sincere exertions to failure (maximum number of times). This requirement is very important. No pain, no gain!" (p. 105)

- This is what American College of Sports Medicine thinks:

"While a few researchers have shown better outcomes for strength and muscular hypertrophy with multiple set protocols, the overall evidence does not support the performance of multiple sets of each exercise or higher volume training...There is not any consistent evidence that the stimulus (repetition performance, number, duration, volume of training) for experienced trainees needs to be different than for beginning trainees. Therefore, there is little or no basis for special ‘advanced’ routines promoted by some organizations, websites, and magazines...A program for any trainee can consist of eight to 10 exercises performed two to three days per week...One set per exercise performed to volitional fatigue can be used with 5-6 to 15 repetitions in a set if a 3,3 duration repetition duration is employed."

[danj112]

Originally Posted by MKM

Half of the NFL teams and many top colleges train HIT

You want to think that one out again?

[MKM]

Originally Posted by danj112

You want to think that one out again?

I am not sure what do you mean?

[danj112]

Originally Posted by MKM

I am not sure what do you mean?

Half on NFL and top colleges train with HIT? You gotta be high to think that. More like different variations of Upper/Lower, Westside, etc. I bet 99% of them don't even know what HIT is.

[MKM]

Originally Posted by danj112

Half on NFL and top colleges train with HIT? You gotta be high to think that. More like different variations of Upper/Lower, Westside, etc. I bet 99% of them don't even know what HIT is.

First, I didn't write that half of NFL teams and top colleges train HIT. I wrote that "Half of the NFL teams and many top colleges train HIT or otherwise non explosively" to argue against the claims made earlier that HIT (and not doing speed strength training, olympic lifts) makes you weak, small, slow and non explosive.

At least these teams are nowadays training without olympic lifts or speed strength training. They are lifting relatively low volume (often less than 2 hours per week), usually to failure (I think there are other teams too):

Arizona Cardinals
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers

Ball State
Bowling Green
Detroit
Florida
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
St. Louis
Toledo
Villanova

As far as I know there are not at the moment NFL teams who train Westside. Louie was a consultant for a few teams last millennium, but since then they have hired new s & c coaches and abandoned Westside.

Low volume, high volume, to failure, not to failure, explosive, non explosive...they all work. There are many ways to Rome.

[Macro D]

Originally Posted by danj112

Half on NFL and top colleges train with HIT? You gotta be high to think that. More like different variations of Upper/Lower, Westside, etc. I bet 99% of them don't even know what HIT is.

Most people don't know what the acronym "HIT" means. Try walking up to people in the gym and ask, "Have you ever used HIT"? Not many will know what you are talking about.

[Macro D]

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Jones, Mentzer, Darden. Necessary for "maximum" results. Mentzers quote is "anything less than an all out effort is a sin against yourself".

That isn't the same thing as saying it's NECESSARY.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Darden (from the Nautilus book)-"muscular failure means that no additional repetitions are possible. It is only by working to this extent that you engage a maximum number of fibers" (which is wrong by the way, all fibers are recruited WAY before failure, in fact with the correct load all are recruited immediately-additional contraction being enabled by rate coding or increased neural firing-you start to shake and it begins to hurt for a reason-your body is telling you to stop. The shaking is partly inefficient neural firing patterns which by the way WILL BE LEARNED IF REPEATED-you "learn" to fail.)

the last part of what you said I totally disagree with. You don't "learn" to fail. That doesn't make any sense. WTF does it mean anyway?

As far as fiber recruitment, you are right, that happens before failure. But nobody knows exactly when, just that it's somewhere near "failure" (which is also totally subjective as some people fail far before others do). John McCallum has been very successful with training programs where you stop 1 rep short of failure. But he and many others recommend training to failure for some period of time to know exactly where "failure" is. You should try to know what your limits are.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Quote:
"I should also note that low rep training to failure is USELESS and can only lead to injury.

I don't think that's true. Leistner is a recognized powerlifting guru and he's pro failure. So is Bob Whelan. McRobert says it can accelerate gains when done properly. Other lifters have documented their results online using this approach."

I'm not sure I follow you. What kind of powerlifter doesn't train with low reps?

When did I say that? Of course you train with low reps, but it's only required when training for a contest. Many feel higher reps are more productive for lifts like deads and squats in the off season.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

Here's why it would be less for strength than size:

The large motor units that one uses for strength are recruited two ways: Speed of movement, or load.

Weightlifters are concerned with the second of course, as maximum speed is not possible with large loads (maximum relative velocity, not force of effort).

So...you use a "threshold" load of say 80% of your 1RM, but you could use any really, the outcome is the same at the end (unless your load is so light as to use only ST fibers-really small motor units).

The kicker is: the large motor units fatigue FIRST during a set they are used in. So it's either small->larger->largest->smaller->smallest for sub-threshold loads, or ALL->smaller->smallest for a threshold load. You seem like a smart guy so you can see where this is going...

I think you've got it totally backwards. The big ones come LAST.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

when you train to failure for strength, you are actually training the ST fibers in your last few reps, decreasing your ability to maximally adapt to large motor unit efforts

Nope, you've got it backwards. The larger FTs come into play during the last reps as the smaller guys are fatigued. Everybody says this.

If it worked the way you said, you should stop at 3 reps on a 10 rep set.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by MKM

.

- Half of the NFL teams and many top colleges train HIT or otherwise non explosively: they are not weak, small, slow or non explosive.

There are 32 teams in the NFL only 6 use hit.
http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonlin...PON%3E2.0.CO;2

[Macro D]

Originally Posted by all pro

There are 32 teams in the NFL only 6 use hit.
http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonlin...PON%3E2.0.CO;2

There were only 26 responses to the survey. And it was in 2001, 5 years ago. Just out of curiousity (since it makes no difference to how I train) what about today?

[all pro]

Originally Posted by MKM

First, I didn't write that half of NFL teams and top colleges train HIT. I wrote that "Half of the NFL teams and many top colleges train HIT or otherwise non explosively" to argue against the claims made earlier that HIT (and not doing speed strength training, olympic lifts) makes you weak, small, slow and non explosive.

At least these teams are nowadays training without olympic lifts or speed strength training. They are lifting relatively low volume (often less than 2 hours per week), usually to failure (I think there are other teams too):

Arizona Cardinals
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers


As far as I know there are not at the moment NFL teams who train Westside. Louie was a consultant for a few teams last millennium, but since then they have hired new s & c coaches and abandoned Westside.

Low volume, high volume, to failure, not to failure, explosive, non explosive...they all work. There are many ways to Rome.

The volume the Pats do would crush you and Simons was hired as a consultant. I don't think their lifting slow.

Arizona Cardinals---HIT
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals---HIT
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts---HIT
Jacksonville Jaguars
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers---HIT
Your list is missing the Jets and the Giants. The Jets gave HIT the boot this year.
Strength and Conditioning Practices of National Football League Strength and Conditioning Coaches
WILLIAM P. EBBEN


Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

DOUGLAS O. BLACKARD


Georgetown Therapy Center, Georgetown, Texas 78626.

ABSTRACT

This article describes the results of a survey of the practices of National Football League strength and conditioning (NFL S&C) coaches. The response rate was 87% (26 of 30). This survey examines survey participant (a) background information, (b) physical testing, (c) flexibility development, (d) speed development, (e) plyometrics, (f) strength/power development, (g) unique aspects, and (h) comments. Results reveal that 18 of 26 (69%) NFL S&C coaches follow a periodization model (PM). Of these coaches, 14 of 16 (88%) who responded to the question reported their athletes used Olympic-style lifts, and 17 of 18 coaches (94%) employed plyometric exercises. Coaches who reported following a PM tested an average of 9.8 variables of fitness, which is an average of 3.55 times per year. Seven of 26 (27%) NFL S&C coaches did not follow a PM (NPM). Five of 7 (71%) of these coaches reported following “high-intensity training” (HIT) principles. None of these coaches reported using Olympic-style lifts. Two of 7 (29%) reported using plyometrics. NFL S&C coaches who follow an NPM reported testing an average of 2.12 variables of fitness, which is an average of 2 times per year. A variety of other strength and conditioning practices were examined.

Ebben, W.P., and D.O. Blackard. Strength and conditioning practices of National Football League strength and conditioning coaches.


Key Words: National Football League, strength and conditioning, survey, physical testing, flexibility development, speed development, plyometrics, strength/power development





ALL NFL teams use abreviated training IN season.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Macro D

There were only 26 responses to the survey. And it was in 2001, 5 years ago. Just out of curiousity (since it makes no difference to how I train) what about today?

Steelers and Bengals = 1 set too failure. Texans use abreviated to failure with drop sets. The Pats use a combination of Starr's programs and a few others, it's periodized as is the Panthers and Packers. I had the Eagles and Giants listed as useing HIT until I saw this http://defrancostraining.com/
Some of these teams really don't want you to know what thier useing. A little known fact is that a player isn't required to use the teams program unless he accepts the sighning bonus for doing so. But if he does'nt he better pass the teams strength and performance tests.

[reflexions]

Originally Posted by MKM aka wayne lucky

I am not sure what do you mean?

I bet you he is wayne!

[all pro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKM aka wayne lucky
I am not sure what do you mean?

Originally Posted by reflexions

I bet you he is wayne!

I think he's Rob Spector. Spector and King Fish are the only 2 who have tried to push HIT as a performance system in the NFL.

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Macro D

Who is John? He created "HIT"?

John 'Bioforce' Cassler created a program called DCT ( direct compansation training )

[danj112]

Originally Posted by all pro

There are 32 teams in the NFL only 6 use hit.
http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonlin...PON%3E2.0.CO;2

They said they use "HIT principles". They could just mean that they use negatives and forced reps sometimes, not that they follow a HIT routine.

Originally Posted by MKM

As far as I know there are not at the moment NFL teams who train Westside.

What I meant was Westside principles.