Why HITers gain despite their routine, not because of it

**Iron Rain** · 09-09-2003, 09:20 PM

Sometimes I see articles like this:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/zach1.htm

Lauding HIT for mega mass and strength gains. And I also see people who dislike HIT, saying their gains suck from it. Well, one thing I notice is it centers around one thing: 20-rep squats/deadlifts. Hell, look at what this guy does!!! No wonder he gains so much mass in so little time, he does two 20 rep squats and two 20 rep deadlifts. Reading that again, I nearly crap my pants just THINKING about that!! Of course, the total muscle workout, the hormonal release, and whatnot would, IMO, lead to actually enhancing the other work (the benches, cable curls and all that other jazz). But this is what I mean when I say HITers gain despite (the rest of) their routine, not because of it.

How much better would routines like this be if they used a more normal set/rep scheme for the other stuff, but 20 reps for squat and deadlift? For example, I recently begun a routine involving 20 rep squats, and 5-7 sets each of 3-5 reps for power cleans and 2 or 4 for olympic jerks. I'm very anxious to see how this works out, because between the cleans and the jerks, my entire upper body gets jacked, save for chest (which I don't really bother with usually, especially because right now I'm in baseball.), and the squats do all I need for lower body. Those who saw the workout I posted yesterday would know what I'm talking about.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but the point is, that 20 rep squats and deads deserve more credit than the rest of the routine, which is basically fluff. But even fluff becomes good stuff when enhanced with 20 rep squats and deads, which is why the upper body mass gain reported by the above guy.

**sqweezer** · 09-09-2003, 09:44 PM

wrong, volume guys see results in spite of their routine, not because of it. Hit guys grow because of the workout. And ive never done 20 rep deadlifts or on any other lift and never will.

**Iron Rain** · 09-09-2003, 09:47 PM

Explain your volume insinuation. And if you don't do 20-rep squats or deads as part of your HIT routine, then your routine is missing out on a key component.

**timbo81** · 09-10-2003, 12:54 AM

Hmm more HIT.

All I'll point out is it seems odd that he's sticking to low reps for upperbody and high reps for lower body. If he was able to do sets of 20 he obviosuly wasn't squating/deadlifting near his max, which seems odd to call it HIT.

**D&G** · 09-10-2003, 12:54 AM

20 rep squats are awesome, thats why people have been doing them for the last 60 years, Peary Rader (who started Ironman magazine) gained 80lbs in three years with a routine based around 20 rep squats.

**banned** · 09-10-2003, 01:01 AM

20 rep squat is not a key component of hit. Most HIT trainees rely on it as the cornerstone of their routine.

**Iron Rain** · 09-10-2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by banned
20 rep squat is not a key component of hit. Most HIT trainees rely on it as the cornerstone of their routine.

Agreed, which is why the credit for the gains should go to 20-reppers first and foremost, not HIT.

**Atavis** · 09-10-2003, 07:05 AM

ROFL.

Ok. 1st quantity of reps has nothing to do with the HIT style of training. The first and foremost component is:

Training to FAILURE and allowing not only full recovery, but time for supercompensation to occur before working it again.

Once you have trained to failure, anything more is fluff and will eventually lead to overtaining if continued. Hense the assertion that volume trainers get gains despite their training protocol.

Now does HIT work on extremely low reps? Not really. Low volume + low reps is not much real work.

That is why 20 rep squats/deads are used, although you should note that this is a practice used by people using the abreviated (brawn/hardgainer0 type routines the most. This rep range requires the trainer to use a high Time Under Tension. After 2 sets, why would you need more? Heck if you are doing HIT, why are you doing 2?

The same can and does apply to the other lifts. Just not to the same extent. Low reps are great if you are doing pause reps and making sure the muscle sees enough tension time and weight.

The trick is making sure that the muscle has truly been worked hard enough and long enough without over doing it.

**Kane Fan** · 09-10-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by sqweezer
wrong, volume guys see results in spite of their routine, not because of it. Hit guys grow because of the workout. And ive never done 20 rep deadlifts or on any other lift and never will.

wrong
volume guys and hit guys gain because they eat enough to gain and tax thier muscles
all there is to it

**Kane Fan** · 09-10-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Atavis
ROFL.

Ok. 1st quantity of reps has nothing to do with the HIT style of training. The first and foremost component is:

Training to FAILURE and allowing not only full recovery, but time for supercompensation to occur before working it again.

Once you have trained to failure, anything more is fluff and will eventually lead to overtaining if continued. Hense the assertion that volume trainers get gains despite their training protocol.

Now does HIT work on extremely low reps? Not really. Low volume + low reps is not much real work.

That is why 20 rep squats/deads are used, although you should note that this is a practice used by people using the abreviated (brawn/hardgainer0 type routines the most. This rep range requires the trainer to use a high Time Under Tension. After 2 sets, why would you need more? Heck if you are doing HIT, why are you doing 2?

The same can and does apply to the other lifts. Just not to the same extent. Low reps are great if you are doing pause reps and making sure the muscle sees enough tension time and weight.

The trick is making sure that the muscle has truly been worked hard enough and long enough without over doing it.

I've countered this failure thing a few million times
check out some other hit threads and get in on them

**Atavis** · 09-10-2003, 12:08 PM

I didn't say I personally beleive that you must hit failure all the time. As a matter of fact i think HIT has some flaws.

I do an abreviated routine which takes some elements from several protocols. IT works for ME better than anything i have yet encountered.

However, training response can be so personal that it probably wouldn't work as well for others.

**Sonny** · 09-10-2003, 01:13 PM

What I don't get is how HITers call themselves "hardgainers!" If you get big from working out for 20 minutes/twice a week, then it's not really that "hard" for you to "gain" is it??

**TarvMan** · 09-10-2003, 01:45 PM

20 rep breathing squats rule, Hit drools. Nuff said.

**sqweezer** · 09-10-2003, 07:27 PM

well 20 reps is okay, but if you can do 21st rep, then you are stupid not to do it. the 20 reps needs to be failure, also mentzer recommends around 4 up and down, larry scott, 5 or 6 up and down, alot of others recommend 10 up and down and some even 30 up and down for one set.

**Taking Cattle** · 09-10-2003, 07:38 PM

So am I to understand that if I do three sets of twenty reps, for both squats and deadlifts, that my body will suddenly explode in size due to increased gh secretion and the like?

I'll gladly do it then, but why do most workout programs have low weights of six to twelve reps for these exercises?

**TarvMan** · 09-10-2003, 07:52 PM

Mentzer has only theories, and zero scientific backing. The strongest athletes in the world have not trained to failure in reps for the last 100 years.

And a true 20 rep squat routine would not have you lifting the heaviest weight you can handle, you cycle the load placed on your body. Going to failur all the time will totallly burn out your CNS.

**sqweezer** · 09-10-2003, 08:18 PM

you just said strongest men in the world dont go to failure, that right, you can gain strength without gaining weight. this is bodybuiding not powerlifting. Have you ever read mentzers articles called bodybuilding is a science. i would say hit is all science especially mentzer hit.

**Es Dubya** · 09-10-2003, 09:59 PM

"wrong
volume guys and hit guys gain because they eat enough to gain and tax thier muscles
all there is to it"

Exactly

"i would say hit is all science especially mentzer hit."

If HIT is all science how can one version of it be 'especially' scientific?

**EAE** · 09-10-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by sqweezer
i would say hit is all science especially mentzer hit.

You left out the pseudo.

**Kane Fan** · 09-10-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Atavis

I didn't say I personally beleive that you must hit failure all the time. As a matter of fact i think HIT has some flaws.

I do an abreviated routine which takes some elements from several protocols. IT works for ME better than anything i have yet encountered.

However, training response can be so personal that it probably wouldn't work as well for others.

try telling it to mentzer
is your program like something McRoberts might suggest?

**Kane Fan** · 09-10-2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by sqweezer
well 20 reps is okay, but if you can do 21st rep, then you are stupid not to do it. the 20 reps needs to be failure, also mentzer recommends around 4 up and down, larry scott, 5 or 6 up and down, alot of others recommend 10 up and down and some even 30 up and down for one set.

hello Rhetoric man
wanna gt owned again?

why is failure the only way to go
why is not going to failure such a big mistake
people who don't go to failure still build muscle mass
....

**TarvMan** · 09-10-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by sqweezer
you just said strongest men in the world dont go to failure, that right, you can gain strength without gaining weight. this is bodybuiding not powerlifting. Have you ever read mentzers articles called bodybuilding is a science. i would say hit is all science especially mentzer hit.

Ya Mentzer might throw out some quote " Bodybuilding is a science" and you say "I would say HIT is all science". But that means nothing, A scientific study would mean something. Besides didnt Mentzer build the majority of his mass, and train most of his life on volume training?

**Kane Fan** · 09-10-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by sqweezer
you just said strongest men in the world dont go to failure, that right, you can gain strength without gaining weight. this is bodybuiding not powerlifting. Have you ever read mentzers articles called bodybuilding is a science. i would say hit is all science especially mentzer hit.

you could say that but you'd be wrong
it's good that you finally stopped lieing about powerlifters and olympic lifters going to failure when they wanna bulk
but as mentzer says increased strength will lead to increased mass
you can gain str w/out mass but only so much the NS can do you know

**Iron Rain** · 09-10-2003, 11:28 PM

TarvMan, do you post at DD? If so who are you there?

sqweezer, 20 rep squats are considered to be the ultimate BBing routine. And they are never to failure. So explain that one, or just shut up and accept your owning by Kane Fan and I.

**TarvMan** · 09-11-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Iron Rain
TarvMan, do you post at DD? If so who are you there?

sqweezer, 20 rep squats are considered to be the ultimate BBing routine. And they are never to failure. So explain that one, or just shut up and accept your owning by Kane Fan and I.

Ya I do actually, I go by just the name "Tarv" but have only posted a couple times, I mostly lurk around and read post's by guys like Rob Lawrence and Steve Maxwell for inspiration. I'll probably start posting my workout routines once they get a little more impressive. I've been focusing on KB training for the past two months and have actully managed to lose bodyfat while gaining a lot of strength and some mass.

**Atavis** · 09-11-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Kane Fan
try telling it to mentzer
is your program like something McRoberts might suggest?

Yes. In some ways it is.

IT is more of an amalgamation of a High/Low + a Rest Pause program.

**Kane Fan** · 09-11-2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Atavis
Yes. In some ways it is.

IT is more of an amalgamation of a High/Low + a Rest Pause program.

that sounds cool
I like either high volume low frequency or low volume high frequency
like I'll do something like 5 sets of 6 on tbar rows and high set deadlift work then some direct bicep work 1x per week
or
I'd do back work one day (with lower sets like 2x6-8 for rows and 3 sets of 5 for deads) and put arms on another day so that the biceps are more frequently worked
or something similar
possibly even training lats 2x per week depending on how I set it up

**sqweezer** · 09-11-2003, 10:50 PM

i never said you couldnt grow by not training to failure, but people that do grow from not training to failure would grow more if they did. the last rep of set to failure is the rep that produces the most growth , after that from each workout to each workout to continue to see results you have to go up by at least one rep or in weight. What are we gonna do, to grow more, get weeker, you have to get stronger . I didnt say powerlift. I said stronger with what you use , meaning if you beat it by one rep in the next workout, you are stronger. By doing one more rep than your previous workout you body had to contract more muscle cells. Now after the workout they body will recover and new growht occurs because the workout contracted more muscle cells. Hit guys grow more because we only have to recover from one set. you dont want to recover from any more sets, because you wont have as much for growth. You want your recovery to go for growth , not for recovery of sets.
You'll see someone post that any routine can grow if progressive resistance occurs. Wouldnt that be best done with hit, you can do acertain weight for acertain number of reps. Then you beat it by one rep the next workout. That is progressive resistance at its best. If you just upped your workout , why do a second set, are we gonna gain extra muscle or something? ha ha ha Just like i said if you had 100 of you, all might gain muscle. Lets say they all do a different number of sets 1 to 100. The one doing 99 would be better than the guy doing 100 and so on and son on. The one doing 10 would see better results than the one doing 11, 5 better than 6, 4 better than 5, 3 better than 4, 2 better than 3, and one set is better than 2.

If you can incline 225 for 5 reps, and normaly do 135 for 10,. 185 for 5, then do 225 for 5. You cant grow if you do 135 for 11, or 185 for 6 , you only grow from doing 225 and doing a 6th rep at least.

Sorry but you wont grow with 185, 195, or even 220 . Only 225 and beating it by at least one rep each workout. When doing hit lets say right now you can incline 185 for 6 reps. if you go up by just one rep each workout which is easily done on hit, especially when adapted to, you would be benching 225 for 10 reps in one year at a minimum, and a year later would be doing 275 for 10. 185 for 6 reps to 275 for 10 in 2 years with no problem.

PEOPLE WANDER WHY ME, MY CLIENTS, AND OTHER HIT TRAINERS ARE SO STRONG. HUH

**TarvMan** · 09-12-2003, 01:30 PM

once again, give us some real scientific evidence to prove HIT. Try to to find some. Even someones training log.

**muscleman_sam** · 09-12-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Iron Rain
Sometimes I see articles like this:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/zach1.htm

Lauding HIT for mega mass and strength gains. And I also see people who dislike HIT, saying their gains suck from it. Well, one thing I notice is it centers around one thing: 20-rep squats/deadlifts. Hell, look at what this guy does!!! No squats and two 20 rep deadlifts. Reading that again, I nearly crap my pants just THINKING about that!! Of course, the total muscle workout, the hormonal release, and whatnot would, IMO, wonder he gains so much mass in so little time, he does two 20 rep lead to actually enhancing the other work (the benches, cable curls and all that other jazz). But this is what I mean when I say HITers gain despite (the rest of) their routine, not because of it.

How much better would routines like this be if they used a more normal set/rep scheme for the other stuff, but 20 reps for squat and deadlift? For example, I recently begun a routine involving 20 rep squats, and 5-7 sets each of 3-5 reps for power cleans and 2 or 4 for olympic jerks. I'm very anxious to see how this works out, because between the cleans and the jerks, my entire upper body gets jacked, save for chest (which I don't really bother with usually, especially because right now I'm in baseball.), and the squats do all I need for lower body. Those who saw the workout I posted yesterday would know what I'm talking about.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but the point is, that 20 rep squats and deads deserve more credit than the rest of the routine, which is basically fluff. But even fluff becomes good stuff when enhanced with 20 rep squats and deads, which is why the upper body mass gain reported by the above guy.

the reasoning behind twenty rep squats is because the legs are obviously designed differently than your arms. imagin walking on your arms all day, it would be near impossible for the normal everyday joe.

the reason you don't want to do any 5 set or 7 set scheme is that those numbers are pulled out of a hat, or an ass. one set is the precise amount, anymore and you're spininng your wheels.

also you say5-7, which is it? 5 or 7, or is it 6? and why stop after an arbitrary number of reps have been reached?

Thread: Why HITers gain despite their routine, not because of it

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Why HITers gain despite their routine, not because of it

Re: Why HITers gain despite their routine, not because of it

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions