Cyberpump.com - H.I.T. The Hammer!

**webmaster** · 06-25-2003, 07:30 PM

In this old article, Dr. Squat never did get his facts completely straight. What follows is the article that was written in response to Dr. Squat's article many years ago. Hopefully, with both articles you will get a chuckle and afterwards go to the gym and PUMP SOME IRON!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump8.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

ZachG_85 · 06-25-2003, 08:06 PM

Wow. You're ****in stupid, my man.

First off, you keep referring to "scientific basis" for this ****. Where? Huh? Find it.

There isn't one study that proves HIT works. There are no winning athletes who USE HIT. There are, however, powerlifters and Oly lifters who train for 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, and they are the ones who set records. HIT-ers don't even win bodybuilding competitions. Especially on the big levels. And even in the naturals ranks.

HIT has no basis, has never been proven, and is constantly getting its ass handed to it on a platter. I mostly chalk it up to the same level of bull**** as that "static contraction" hooey Pete Sisco talks about.

Hey, maybe I'll respond to your response...

V taper wannabe · 06-25-2003, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster
In this old article, Dr. Squat never did get his facts completely straight. What follows is the article that was written in response to Dr. Squat's article many years ago. Hopefully, with both articles you will get a chuckle and afterwards go to the gym and PUMP SOME IRON!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump8.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

This article makes me think H.I.T. followers are narrow-minded, biased and emotional even more than before.

I don't like this kind of flaming articles.

fantaz · 06-25-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Numerous studies have shown that if you do the SAME training for 3 sets it's no better than if you did it for 1. You are right about one thing. Yes, more than 1 set is required if YOU DON'T REACH FAILURE ON THAT FIRST SET! If you don't reach failure then yes, you do need to make a better inroad and get a higher intensity with more sets. But why bother? Just do the one set to failure and you won't have to spend all that wasted time. As for "many athletes do as many as 10 sets"... So? Many people still believe that white men with brown eyes are superior to all other beings. Does that make them right?

good stuff.
anyway zach you need a life isntead of living on these boards. go out and find a girlfriend or something instead of arguing constantly and repeating yourself in every single post you make
bashing HIT. what works for some doesnt work for others. accept it

BigKazWSM747 · 06-25-2003, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Numerous studies have shown that if you do the SAME training for 3 sets it's no better than if you did it for 1. You are right about one thing. Yes, more than 1 set is required if YOU DON'T REACH FAILURE ON THAT FIRST SET! If you don't reach failure then yes, you do need to make a better inroad and get a higher intensity with more sets. But why bother? Just do the one set to failure and you won't have to spend all that wasted time. As for "many athletes do as many as 10 sets"... So? Many people still believe that white men with brown eyes are superior to all other beings. Does that make them right?

Ok lets point out the extremely obvious fact here. Nearly ALL of these studies were done w/ RAW begineers or people who had been lifting for only a few weeks (and by nearly i mean practically ALL). Thats fine and dandy but for the raw begineer nearly any training program will have good results. There are amazing differences in the results of begineers to intermediates and especially elite athletes.

For those of you who want to point out that various teams in the NFL use HIT workouts lemme point something out. These are during team training sessions in which many of the best athletes on the team do not attend; football players almost always have some type of other training program or trainer, during the offseason and most of the season.

I'm going to address more of this article as i read more...but this needs to be pointed out immediatly.

BigKazWSM747 · 06-25-2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Max Kennerly's Response: Problem. Explosive lifting has a massive possibility of hurting you. Higher than HIT. Beyond that, define "hurt." Could overtraining yourself to sickness be considered "hurt?"

Explosive weightlifting...this has been covered many times. By explosive you mean things like the olympic lifts (these are a popular target from HITers). 1st per 100 hours training Olympic Lifting has less injuries than normal weight training and that includes HIT. "Explosive lifting" has also proved to be very beneficial to many athletes. Take powerlifters for example...in Westside Barbell (the most successful powerlifters in the world)...they preform dynamic effort days. They lift a weight ranging from 50-65% of their 1RM for roughly 3-5 reps for multiple sets. Not to mention they preform GPP work that can sometimes include light olympic lifts. Would you call this kind of training ineffective when the numbers speak for themselves on how this method works?

BTW when running or sprinting athletes deal with about 4-8 times their body weight in stress on the muscles...olympic lifting doesnt even come close to this kind of stress on the joints.

Now onto the second point of overtraining. The Bulgarian olympic weightlifters train six days a week and up to six hours a day (typically no less than 4.5 hours). Of course i suppose they are overtraining and have no results right? WRONG! The Bulgarians dominated the weightlifting scene along with the Soviets in the 80s and are still sharing the stage with the Russians and Chinese today!

*the following is inserted out of order to clear this up right away*

Quote:

Whoa whoa whoa... hold it there. I won't go into speed training, but HIT isn't supposed to cover speed training! It's just a weight lifting protocol. Of course you can't go to failure running, HIT never said you should. HIT said you should reach failure whenever you lift weights, not in every area of your life.

What you said about running and whatnot is fair enough. However, powerlifters have a whole lot to do with lifting weights and the DE day to improve speed and explosiveness has importance here.

Quote:

*when referring to the 1st 3 of the "7 commandments"* Max Kennerly's Response: AHEM! Does "reaching failure" come to mind for anyone?

Yes, reaching failure is one way to do this. Training the CNS and periodization is another method which thus far has proven more effective in sports. Even the top BBers today use high volume schemes. As for Dorian Yates...his workouts are not considered HIT by Mentzer standards and he has a lot of "warm up" sets.

Quote:

Max Kennerly's Response: Yep.. and that "low intensity or complete rest" can be just sitting around on off days.

Again lets mention the Westside Barbell Club the DE day is an obvious statement but lets look at another...You might say...hey they are powerlifters why do they do GGP work? Well the answer is light workouts can help muscle recovery. This also answers your "why are light weights needed" statement.

Quote:

Max Kennerly's Response: Well obviously Webster knows everything about biomechanical use/growth. Webster certainly is an all-knowing being who cannot be wrong. Webster simply wrote the definition of the word, intensity is used by HITers because it best fits the technique. I saw no real comments in that paragraph, you simply said a bodybuilder can have "intensity" while training. Obviously. HITers talk about the intensity at the muscular level, not some bodybuilder jumping up and down with excitement about training.

I'll be brief, intensity is defined by the strength experts as being weight close to a 1RM, therefore failure really has nothing to do with intensity. Also i'd like for you to read my post under H.I.T. with a Hammer involving Mel Siff.

Quote:

Max Kennerly's Response: Why will they hit plateaus? I can give you one answer, their training is more effective so they'll hit plateaus more often, because they are making better gains!

If its more effective why are HITers not the top O-Lifters or PLers? And for that matter hardly any of the top BBers use HIT either!

FortifiedIron · 06-26-2003, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Problem. Explosive lifting has a massive possibility of hurting you. Higher than HIT. Beyond that, define "hurt." Could overtraining yourself to sickness be considered "hurt?"

**This I find rather interesting to say the least. HIT has always spouted this **** off at the mouth, yet has never backed it up. I have plenty of supplying work by indviduals who have injured themselve and gained very little with HIT in the process.Why? Could it be the ****ty training method or could it be they didnt know what they are doing? Or both? I think its a given fact that anybody that just wants to pick up olympic lifting and dont have a clue what they are doing gives them a higher injury risk. Same goes for ANY MOVEMENT. I'll say it again and again. Its not the movement that hurts people, its the people that hurt people. I wish people would see this and stop putting a dogmatic view point on strickly Olympic Lifting, expecially when they can supply any scientific evidence to support what they've said. People must forget about the Hamill study where it showed that Olympic lifting per 100hrs trained had actually LESS Injuries then that of your great bodybuilding and powerlifting. This is amazing to say the least, but such backwards of what you claim. No that isnt all I got their buddy ole pow. How about taking the time and checking out the research done by British and American Scientist on the back's of weighlifters showing around 8% total of all injuries in olympic lifting occure to the back, this is stricking when you notice the mechanics of the movement and the 'pulling' during them. There are more injuries happening on super slow deadlifting, squating and bench pressing then Olympic Lifting. How about the great amount of lower body injuries happening during aerobics class by instructors hoping to avoid sudden quick movements? Does that make it more safe then Olympic lifting? Did you know that around 25% of the injuries occuring in olympic lifting ar knee injuries, which is LESS then the amont of knee injuries you find in distance runners. Should we stop runing distance?
Wanna talk about how sudden jerking and ballistic loading much like olympic lifting can help STRENGTHEN connective tissue?
I end this statement.

Quote:

Numerous studies have shown that if you do the SAME training for 3 sets it's no better than if you did it for 1. You are right about one thing. Yes, more than 1 set is required if YOU DON'T REACH FAILURE ON THAT FIRST SET! If you don't reach failure then yes, you do need to make a better inroad and get a higher intensity with more sets. But why bother? Just do the one set to failure and you won't have to spend all that wasted time. As for "many athletes do as many as 10 sets"... So? Many people still believe that white men with brown eyes are superior to all other beings. Does that make them right?

What studies are you talking about the proves one set is better then 3? Can you plz show me, I have yet to read any that support that claim.

Also will you plz define failure for me? What exactly fails? Your muscles? Your CNS?

As for the athletes comments.. let me know when Brzycki takes an average joe to stardom, or yet produces anybody better then 'decent' i just dont see him producing any great athlete's out of his little hole in the road.

Quote:

Well obviously Webster knows everything about biomechanical use/growth. Webster certainly is an all-knowing being who cannot be wrong. Webster simply wrote the definition of the word, intensity is used by HITers because it best fits the technique. I saw no real comments in that paragraph, you simply said a bodybuilder can have "intensity" while training. Obviously. HITers talk about the intensity at the muscular level, not some bodybuilder jumping up and down with excitement about training.

Who is to say your term of 'intensity' is used properly? Are you the one that knows everything about biomechanics and growth? Didnt think so Mr. Jedi! Hell, i dont even agree with Hatfields term of intensity. The ONLY term that should be used I feel is the term the olympic lifters/powerlifters have used for decades before HIT was even thought of.

Quote:

Ah, so that obviously means they're right. If I trained 4 times an hour, would that mean I was right? If there was a catabolic effect would that call for a periodized approach? Certainly if you trained twice a day! If you trained twice a day you would need light days and heavy days or you wouldn't be able to work out. Solution: Don't work out twice a day. Work out up to 3 days a week at high intensity. Then you don't have to bother with that ineffective heavy day and light day crap!

Why not train a light day after or during the same day as a heavy day? Expecially when this workout could be used as a feeder work to help with recovery. I suppose you've heard of GPP/SPP before correct? Maybe you should talk to Louie Simmions and Dave Tate for suggesting this. Also Mel Siff has suggested it several times in the past.

Quote:

Why will they hit plateaus? I can give you one answer, their training is more effective so they'll hit plateaus more often, because they are making better gains!

Im sorry but this makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Can you please elaborate on what the hell you just said. You cant make gains if you hit a plateau, by hitting it you will then have to work around it.. which takes time. Time at which your not gaining muscle, muscle that you guys think is a life and death ordeal!

Its funny how HITer's will talk bout how us volume people are so narrow minded about training and never open up our true minds to explore other things. Yet, you have a guy here who is acting like his relgion was just bashed so he feels threaten bout it. Its rather interesting and funny none the less.

Kc

FortifiedIron · 06-26-2003, 12:40 PM

Come on.. i know sombody here has the balls to question what i said. Now lets see it

Kc

Clayton South · 06-26-2003, 02:01 PM

I find myself quite disturbed that someone, instead of producing an article of their own, feels the need to ride the coattails of Dr Squat by creating this public rebuke.

Creativity [as far as man can create] involves actually writing YOUR OWN article, as opposed to being a second-hand producer by writing meager responses to someone elses article, with which you happen to disagree.

I find this whole situation really, REALLY childish and very unprofessional.

- Clayton South

Nollej · 06-27-2003, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantaz
Numerous studies have shown that if you do the SAME training for 3 sets it's no better than if you did it for 1. You are right about one thing. Yes, more than 1 set is required if YOU DON'T REACH FAILURE ON THAT FIRST SET! If you don't reach failure then yes, you do need to make a better inroad and get a higher intensity with more sets. But why bother? Just do the one set to failure and you won't have to spend all that wasted time. As for "many athletes do as many as 10 sets"... So? Many people still believe that white men with brown eyes are superior to all other beings. Does that make them right?

This moron is not aware of the study. It does not include failure, it includes traditional training. He twists a study and changes it into favour of HIT and himself, although there was no failure involved. He is a liar. The study showed strength gains in lifters were the same from 1 set than from more. There was no failure involved, that dirty lieing bitch.

ZachG_85 · 06-27-2003, 09:45 AM

Everyone talks about failure. But here's something that HIT-nazis may not be considering:

...a set to failure isn't necessarily best. If you bench 225 9 times, then take a 10th rep to absolute failure (let's say a real long slow forced rep), chances are you won't be able to do one rep with that weight again. But if you stopped at positive failure, you might be able to do it again 8 times. Then maybe 6 if you do it a third.

Do the math, check out the time under tension, the total overload, and the saved CNS. It's simply superior.

FortifiedIron · 06-27-2003, 02:15 PM

Btw.. look for an up coming series of articles by me on HIT.

They will be titled HIT with IRON, The Truth Behind The Jedi's

Kc

**str8flexed** · 06-27-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantaz
good stuff.
anyway zach you need a life isntead of living on these boards. go out and find a girlfriend or something instead of arguing constantly and repeating yourself in every single post you make
bashing HIT. what works for some doesnt work for others. accept it

SO WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1??????????????

ZachG_85 · 06-27-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed
SO WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1??????????????

Shh.... that's the big secret.

There aren't any

Nollej · 06-29-2003, 01:43 AM

This applies to HIT frequency. I pulled it from the HST article just written...

The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.

HIT GUY · 08-22-2003, 01:10 PM

I have tried the volume method. Not just a try but a sincere effort of 15 years. Due to lack of progress I thought I would give this HIT thing a try. And what do you know, I gained almost 25 pounds of solid muscle and moved into the heavy weight class at local bodybuilding shows.

Heres my question to all of you, I have been down the volume road and I have also been down the HIT road. How many of you guys who get your rocks off bashing HIT have ever tried it?

10-15-2003, 01:04 PM

I find the writer was cocky and immature... what he did was attacking an article, which cannot open its mouth to respond ('Beyond that, define "hurt." Could overtraining yourself to sickness be considered "hurt?"').

He didn't say anything scientific ("AHEM! Does "reaching failure" come to mind for anyone?"), just cut the original message into pieces and said stupid things like ("Yep.. and that "low intensity or complete rest" can be just sitting around on off days."). WTF!

03-25-2004, 07:11 AM

I don't understand why you Anti-HIT guys are so angry. If the program you're using is working, keep doing it. If HIT is working for others, good for them. Diversity is a good thing, right? I won't try to change your minds regarding HIT. It sounds like your minds are already made up.

To anyone else reading this: don't listen to the angry rhetoric of these conventional-method bodybuilders. Give HIT a try. Do some reading on it, then spend a few months on a high intensity program. You can always go back to mainstream methods if it doesn't work for you. And, you won't have to pay any money to Arthur Jones:-)

mondo223 · 02-14-2008, 10:19 PM

I love all the people bashing Dr. Hatfield. How many of you have set world records in powerlifting, some of which done past the age of 45? Anyone? Anyone? I didn't think so.

Dr. Hatfield knows what he is talking about. He has successfully trained more powerlifters, bodybuilders and athletes then anyone who posts here, and probably has more education as well.