Variation is the key surely? Volume vs HIT

[nickk23]

I know this is probably futile posting this and if the post stays up, im sure it will just turn into another debate/slagging match where people just argue the same points over and over BUT!!!

Do all those that HATE HIT really disregard it as a waste of time? Does it really yield no benefit at all apart from swift overtraining and less than optimal muscle fibre rectruitment?


Those that train with volume, I ask the following:

how would you define 'Volume training'?
How many sets do you think is enough for a muscle group in a workout?
Is it really necessary to rest a week between exercising a muscle group or do you train each muscle more regularly?
How do you vary your routines a part from changing up the weight every so often or varying rep schemes.


I apologise if im simply adding more fuel to the ever raging fire over the downfalls of HIT but it seems most of the posts revolve around why HIT is bad and those advocating volume asking the HITers what makes it so good. I want (and i stress I am entirely impartial due to my varied success in the lifting game) all those volume trainees to tell me why volume training works, or at least point me in the direction of some explanations. It seems this information has been lost in the mire of HIT slander.

Many thanks.

[scott_donald]

best thing to say is that everyone finds the method that works best for them and should stick to it... no method is better than another... yet again you do get people who do stupid things that do work...

[massmatters]

volume works because you're training for sarcoplasmic hyptrophy ( whether they know it or not ), meaning an increase in the amount of non contractile matter in the muscle, such as increased blood uptake, increased glycogen storage... this will make your muscles bigger in a shorter amount of time than if you were training for sarcomere hypertrophy, actual growth of the muscles' fibers. the drawback of the first is that should you take a break, gains will fade away much faster than had you been training for sarcomere hypertrophy, and you will not have made as significant strength gains. which is better? depends on your goal, you can't just train for one, but with volume you're mostly training for sarcoplasmic, and with hit, or other routines that focus on strength gains, you're focusing on sarcomere. I personally like know that I'm gaining muscle and not just holding more 'fuel' in my muscles so I stick to routines that focus around strength gains.

[Kane Fan]

I dislike HIT
but I do not think HIT is useless
I DO think it is a very crappy program if you use it for prolonged periods
but I do feel a HIT style workout setup can be used as part of a broader program where some low volume failure work is just a part of the workout
and done breifly
say 3 weeks ideally not more then 6

[timbo81]

The key is adequate rest.

If you do a heavy leg workout do you really think your body has recovered by the next day. Your body acts as a whole unit, it doesn't distinguish whether you had a bicep day, leg day etc.
Even 1 days rest isn't enough, that's why with volume your body is wasting alot of it's time trying to recover what it's lost.


I'll quote Pete Sisco when he says "Every day is a kidney day"

[Kane Fan]

Originally posted by timbo81
The key is adequate rest.

If you do a heavy leg workout do you really think your body has recovered by the next day. Your body acts as a whole unit, it doesn't distinguish whether you had a bicep day, leg day etc.
Even 1 days rest isn't enough, that's why with volume your body is wasting alot of it's time trying to recover what it's lost.


I'll quote Pete Sisco when he says "Every day is a kidney day"

Volume and Frequency are different

also are you implying that if I do a set of Barbell Curls my traps will be as traumatized as my biceps?
if so please stop posting and start reading some information by people other then Sisco...

[AMG]

Originally posted by Kane Fan
I dislike HIT

At least you finally admit it.

[timbo81]

No i'm saying your energy levels will have been depleted from the workout the previous day, so working out before you have completely recovered is just wasting energy that could have been used for growing. Your body acts as a whole unit.

And yes volume and frequency are different but all volume people train frequently don't they......

[nickk23]

Originally posted by massmatters
volume works because you're training for sarcoplasmic hyptrophy ( whether they know it or not ), meaning an increase in the amount of non contractile matter in the muscle, such as increased blood uptake, increased glycogen storage... this will make your muscles bigger in a shorter amount of time than if you were training for sarcomere hypertrophy, actual growth of the muscles' fibers. the drawback of the first is that should you take a break, gains will fade away much faster than had you been training for sarcomere hypertrophy, and you will not have made as significant strength gains. which is better? depends on your goal, you can't just train for one, but with volume you're mostly training for sarcoplasmic, and with hit, or other routines that focus on strength gains, you're focusing on sarcomere. I personally like know that I'm gaining muscle and not just holding more 'fuel' in my muscles so I stick to routines that focus around strength gains.

Im not sure i entirely agree with what you're saying here. I was under the impression that strength vs hypertrophy training was dependent on the rep range or perhaps time under tension. Surely performing say 20 squats to failure is not going to focus on strength gains because you are stressing the anaerobic capabilities of the muscle. However if I were to do 3 reps to failure (same tempo), im gonna be hitting the strength stimulation more because my muscles will need to adapt to recruit more muscle fibres in a shorter amount of time. Conversely there is nothing wrong with training with volume for strength surely!

However I do agree that more rest is needed on HIT (as i have recently discovered) and is likely to perhaps offset any mass gains while im sure strength may increase. But again, i agree that it is important to train both for size and strength periodically since both complement each other in terms of gains.

[nickk23]

Originally posted by timbo81
The key is adequate rest.

If you do a heavy leg workout do you really think your body has recovered by the next day. Your body acts as a whole unit, it doesn't distinguish whether you had a bicep day, leg day etc.
Even 1 days rest isn't enough, that's why with volume your body is wasting alot of it's time trying to recover what it's lost.


I'll quote Pete Sisco when he says "Every day is a kidney day"

I think im inclined to agree with Kane here since energy levels are not just stored centrally. Energy is stored locally in muscle cells and if you hammer your legs one day, the glycogen deficit in your biceps will not be equal to that of your quads. In fact it is unlikely that the energy storage will suffer much at all. It may be the case that in restocking leg glycogen stores that other energy stores are tapped, but this is more likely to come from the liver (central glycogen storage) rather than other muscles. However, if indeed you feel a lack of energy required to hit your biceps the day after legs, im sure it is more likely that you have hammered your CNS far more than your energy levels which will manifest itself as a fatigued state. However, overall CNS overtraining depends on workout length and intensity the two being inversely proportional. So volume training, if stopping short of failure is not likely to stress your CNS and 'deplete energy'. If it does then it is your own unique recovery period that should dictate the volume/frequency/intensity of training.

[Kane Fan]

Originally posted by AMG
At least you finally admit it.

like I was hiding it before?
HIT invovles failure training
I express my dislike of failure training any chance I get because I feel it's detrimental
someone could hardly say I've been less then forthcoming with my general dislike of HIT
tho I dislike MORE the idea of people calling it a magical routine or saying it's the best there is and then not backing it up with anything other then Mentzer said

[Kane Fan]

Originally posted by timbo81
No i'm saying your energy levels will have been depleted from the workout the previous day, so working out before you have completely recovered is just wasting energy that could have been used for growing. Your body acts as a whole unit.

And yes volume and frequency are different but all volume people train frequently don't they......

do all HIT people have nothing to back up thier claims other then Mentzer said?
of course not
I've seen some of them make arguments w/out even mentioning Mentzer!

so no all volume people don't train with high frequency

[Kane Fan]

Originally posted by nickk23

However I do agree that more rest is needed on HIT (as i have recently discovered) and is likely to perhaps offset any mass gains while im sure strength may increase. But again, i agree that it is important to train both for size and strength periodically since both complement each other in terms of gains.

yes
you see this is one of my problems with prolonged use of HIT
break time keeps increasing so diminishing returns start in
if I were to give you advice (wich I am, not that you asked for it or anything) I'd tell you to switch between HIT and some sub failure work (abbreviated is fine) so you can have the frequency up a bit and switch between HIT and abreviated sub failure should work fairly well

[Kane Fan]

Originally posted by nickk23
I think im inclined to agree with Kane here since energy levels are not just stored centrally. Energy is stored locally in muscle cells and if you hammer your legs one day, the glycogen deficit in your biceps will not be equal to that of your quads. In fact it is unlikely that the energy storage will suffer much at all. It may be the case that in restocking leg glycogen stores that other energy stores are tapped, but this is more likely to come from the liver (central glycogen storage) rather than other muscles. However, if indeed you feel a lack of energy required to hit your biceps the day after legs, im sure it is more likely that you have hammered your CNS far more than your energy levels which will manifest itself as a fatigued state. However, overall CNS overtraining depends on workout length and intensity the two being inversely proportional. So volume training, if stopping short of failure is not likely to stress your CNS and 'deplete energy'. If it does then it is your own unique recovery period that should dictate the volume/frequency/intensity of training.

that post was a thing of beauty!
the CNS is hurt pretty bad by failure trainnig wich is why I don't like failure training!

[muscleman_sam]

Originally posted by Kane Fan
like I was hiding it before?
HIT invovles failure training
I express my dislike of failure training any chance I get because I feel it's detrimental
someone could hardly say I've been less then forthcoming with my general dislike of HIT
tho I dislike MORE the idea of people calling it a magical routine or saying it's the best there is and then not backing it up with anything other then Mentzer said

i'm not going to defend my exit or return, except that i got bored with the bords before.

i'd also like to tell Kane Fan he has now become the leading mystic in the bodybuilding community. "because i feel its detrimental" do you mean that its a gut feeling that you just know is wrong, you should really be careful of your word choice.

one who disregards his feelings on topics can approach them with logic and reason, and by using them one would also be able to deduce that going to failure is the only logical approach. if aerobic approaches to strength training produces results that are mostly detrimental to size and strength gains then the logical thing to do is to make something purely anerobic. that means a static contraction taken to failure.

[muscleman_sam]

Originally posted by Kane Fan
that post was a thing of beauty!
the CNS is hurt pretty bad by failure trainnig wich is why I don't like failure training!

again, i hardly see why his argument would be any reason to not go to failure. more energy depletion the more time needed to take off, its as simple as that.

[Wanker527]

Originally posted by muscleman_sam
again, i hardly see why his argument would be any reason to not go to failure. more energy depletion the more time needed to take off, its as simple as that.

energy deficits are generally restored much more quickly than it takes for the cns to recover fully. that's why it's a good argument. and for jesus sakes, don't you and kane fan get into it again...****, just live and let live for once.

[muscleman_sam]

Originally posted by Wanker527
energy deficits are generally restored much more quickly than it takes for the cns to recover fully. that's why it's a good argument. and for jesus sakes, don't you and kane fan get into it again...****, just live and let live for once.

it isn't a good argument, if the CNS takes more time to recover theres the remedy of giving it the time to recover. problem solved.

[massmatters]

Originally posted by nickk23
Im not sure i entirely agree with what you're saying here. I was under the impression that strength vs hypertrophy training was dependent on the rep range or perhaps time under tension. Surely performing say 20 squats to failure is not going to focus on strength gains because you are stressing the anaerobic capabilities of the muscle. However if I were to do 3 reps to failure (same tempo), im gonna be hitting the strength stimulation more because my muscles will need to adapt to recruit more muscle fibres in a shorter amount of time. Conversely there is nothing wrong with training with volume for strength surely!

However I do agree that more rest is needed on HIT (as i have recently discovered) and is likely to perhaps offset any mass gains while im sure strength may increase. But again, i agree that it is important to train both for size and strength periodically since both complement each other in terms of gains.

I was refering to strength gains resulting from muscular hypertrophy and not increased neurological efficiency.

[Wanker527]

Originally posted by muscleman_sam
it isn't a good argument, if the CNS takes more time to recover theres the remedy of giving it the time to recover. problem solved.

not exactly, because then your muscles get MORE time to recover than they needed and slight muscle atrophy can even set in. if the muscle has had more than the time it needs to recover and grow, then obviously your split is not optimal because you would want to hit the muscle again as soon as the muscle is healed to keep gains coming as quickly and consistently as possible, in addition to keeping protein synthesis at its peak. the only problem is with hit manytimes is that the cns is not recuped yet, and THAT'S why the extra rest is needed. hence optimal frequency is not truly possible for prolonged periods, at least. is what everyone tells you that difficult for you to comprehend? read up on the hst website, if i remember correctly it speaks of this very problem. problem solved my ass...you ALWAYS think you have the answers.

[Throwback]

Originally posted by nickk23
I think im inclined to agree with Kane here since energy levels are not just stored centrally. Energy is stored locally in muscle cells and if you hammer your legs one day, the glycogen deficit in your biceps will not be equal to that of your quads. In fact it is unlikely that the energy storage will suffer much at all. It may be the case that in restocking leg glycogen stores that other energy stores are tapped, but this is more likely to come from the liver (central glycogen storage) rather than other muscles. However, if indeed you feel a lack of energy required to hit your biceps the day after legs, im sure it is more likely that you have hammered your CNS far more than your energy levels which will manifest itself as a fatigued state. However, overall CNS overtraining depends on workout length and intensity the two being inversely proportional. So volume training, if stopping short of failure is not likely to stress your CNS and 'deplete energy'. If it does then it is your own unique recovery period that should dictate the volume/frequency/intensity of training.

You are correct ... glyogen is deficit in your legs after you hammer them ... but if you proceed to hammer your biceps the next day then you create another deficit ... in which case the energy is split between the two muscles to produce growth ... Its not like the biceps just wait in line for a few days while the legs are healing for their turn ....

Why not wait until your legs have been replenished before you move on to your next intense workout?

The argument vs. HIT needs to prove a few things:

1. That muscles can atrophy in the time between workouts (typically about 7 days between bodyparts and 3 - 4 days between workouts doing a 2 day split). Because if they dont atrophy, and you have properly exhausted the muscle ... it must be stimulating growth.

2. That training multiple sets will work the muscle better than a single set to failure. I personally think you can do both ... I prefer working 1 light set for warmup, then a 2nd set to failure. This also allows me to measure how much I have gained between each workout.

these are the key elements of HIT .... MOST people that try HIT do not do it correctly. For mass building I think forming a training schedule around these 2 principles is the best way. For cutting I still like it, but just add cardio. I have trained many people using these 2 principles and have had a LOT of success doing so for long periods of time.

[GDI]

Originally posted by Throwback
You are correct ... glyogen is deficit in your legs after you hammer them ... but if you proceed to hammer your biceps the next day then you create another deficit ... in which case the energy is split between the two muscles to produce growth ... Its not like the biceps just wait in line for a few days while the legs are healing for their turn ....

Why not wait until your legs have been replenished before you move on to your next intense workout?

The argument vs. HIT needs to prove a few things:

1. That muscles can atrophy in the time between workouts (typically about 7 days between bodyparts and 3 - 4 days between workouts doing a 2 day split). Because if they dont atrophy, and you have properly exhausted the muscle ... it must be stimulating growth.

2. That training multiple sets will work the muscle better than a single set to failure. I personally think you can do both ... I prefer working 1 light set for warmup, then a 2nd set to failure. This also allows me to measure how much I have gained between each workout.

these are the key elements of HIT .... MOST people that try HIT do not do it correctly. For mass building I think forming a training schedule around these 2 principles is the best way. For cutting I still like it, but just add cardio. I have trained many people using these 2 principles and have had a LOT of success doing so for long periods of time.

I think you are underestimating the recovery ability of the human body...assuming your are giving it the proper nutrition it needs to do it's job. The Bulgarians have produced some of the biggest strongest people in the world and they, at times, train several times per day. I remember reading somewhere that they (the Bulgarians) had determined that with breif training sessions (45 min. or less) that your muscles can easily recover within 48 hrs. and atrophy will actually start to set in after 72 hrs. And if that's the case then if you wait more then 72 hrs. before you work the same muscles again you are actually hindering your progress. Granted there are a lot of variables that need to be taken into account as far as number of reps, sets, rest period between sets and if you train to failure or not (and I don't think you should by the way) but I beileve that these principles are correct from my experience.

[timbo81]

It takes like a good 3-4 weeks of not being used for muscle to start to atrophy.

[Throwback]

Originally posted by GDI
I think you are underestimating the recovery ability of the human body...assuming your are giving it the proper nutrition it needs to do it's job. The Bulgarians have produced some of the biggest strongest people in the world and they, at times, train several times per day. I remember reading somewhere that they (the Bulgarians) had determined that with breif training sessions (45 min. or less) that your muscles can easily recover within 48 hrs. and atrophy will actually start to set in after 72 hrs. And if that's the case then if you wait more then 72 hrs. before you work the same muscles again you are actually hindering your progress. Granted there are a lot of variables that need to be taken into account as far as number of reps, sets, rest period between sets and if you train to failure or not (and I don't think you should by the way) but I beileve that these principles are correct from my experience.

So your scientific basis is from some bulgarians and that is it? The Bulgarians can claim muscles atrophy in 72 hours ... but where is the actual research? How many Bulgarians have won Mr Olympia? They have produced some very strong people ... but so have Americans and other countries... just because Bulgarians have produced a lot of strong people doesnt mean we should take their advicse when other regions have produced the same ammount of physical specimines. If you can show me some scientific research that says a muscle will atrophy in 72 hours I would love to see it.

Massmatters said it before as well. There is a difference between sarcoplasmic hyptrophy and sarcomere hypertrophy.

please see: http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html

Something that needs to be pointed out as well is the fact that different people have different rocovery abilities. A person with good genetics or that is on AS can recover much faster than a person who is a hard gainer. Also a person that is new to lifting will recover faster than someone with similar genetics that will.

Theres ARE diffrent variations of HIT. The once per week is for the extreme hardgainers (people who might not be able to recover in 48 hours). Dorian Yates followed H.I.T. along with Aron Baker and Labrada and many others. They were not hard gainers and could work out more frequently. HIT works well when volume stops working

What HIT encourages is to start out lifting as much as 3 or 4 times per week. When gains stall out one should try to increase rest days ... not work out more.

Do you disagree with this?

What are your suggestions for one who stops making gains but continues to work out 4 times per week?

Did their recovery time speed up to 12 hours so that they need to start working out 6 days a week suddenly?

[GDI]

I doubt that it takes 3-4 weeks of not being stressed for a muscle to atrophy. I do believe that atrophy probably begins somewhere around the 72-96 hr. mark....but it is probably such a small amount that it isn't noticeable without extensive testing. I personally probably wouldn't notice it for at least a week after it begins....but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

[Wanker527]

Originally posted by timbo81
It takes like a good 3-4 weeks of not being used for muscle to start to atrophy.

proof?

[GDI]

Originally posted by Throwback
So your scientific basis is from some bulgarians and that is it? The Bulgarians can claim muscles atrophy in 72 hours ... but where is the actual research? How many Bulgarians have won Mr Olympia? They have produced some very strong people ... but so have Americans and other countries... just because Bulgarians have produced a lot of strong people doesnt mean we should take their advicse when other regions have produced the same ammount of physical specimines. If you can show me some scientific research that says a muscle will atrophy in 72 hours I would love to see it.

Yep....that's it....that's all I have to base it on. If I can find something on the research I will post it. But I read it about 9 years ago in a book...and I doubt that I will find it again. By the way...the Bulgarians kick most everyone's ass on almost a daily basis in powerlifting. And considering that their pool of people to pick from is a tiny fraction of our's and other countries and they still continue to produce bigger, stronger people than us I would say yes....we should take their advice.

Originally posted by Throwback
Massmatters said it before as well. There is a difference between sarcoplasmic hyptrophy and sarcomere hypertrophy.

please see: http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html

Something that needs to be pointed out as well is the fact that different people have different rocovery abilities. A person with good genetics or that is on AS can recover much faster than a person who is a hard gainer. Also a person that is new to lifting will recover faster than someone with similar genetics that will.

I understand all this and agree.

Originally posted by Throwback
Theres ARE diffrent variations of HIT. The once per week is for the extreme hardgainers (people who might not be able to recover in 48 hours). Dorian Yates followed H.I.T. along with Aron Baker and Labrada and many others. They were not hard gainers and could work out more frequently. HIT works well when volume stops working.

I don't dispute this. It is the basis of periodization.

Originally posted by Throwback
What HIT encourages is to start out lifting as much as 3 or 4 times per week. When gains stall out one should try to increase rest days ... not work out more.

Do you disagree with this?

No I don't disagree with that. But the main reason this is necessary is because of the stress on the CNS due to constantly trainig to failure....not the inability of the muscles to recover....at least as far as I understand it. If you limit how often you train to failure you shouldn't have to continually increase your rest periods like you do on a continual HIT program. Again....periodization comes in here.

Originally posted by Throwback
What are your suggestions for one who stops making gains but continues to work out 4 times per week?

That would depend on a lot of things. If they were training to failure for a long time I would recommend they take a few weeks off to let their CNS fully recover. Then there are a lot of options to try for routines...but I would tell them NOT to work to failure.

Originally posted by Throwback
Did their recovery time speed up to 12 hours so that they need to start working out 6 days a week suddenly?

Doubtful that their recovery would speed up. But I wouldn't rule out working out 6 days a week with the proper program once their CNS fully recovered. I have and know several people who worked out 6 days per week sometimes twice each day doing different bodyparts and made wonderful gains. It is all a matter of having the proper routine for the individual.

[Throwback]

most volume programs involve hitting the muscle once per week ... just like HIT does. The difference is most HIT routines combine the bodyparts into 1 - 3 workouts instead of 5 per week.

If atrophy sets in in 24 hours, 72 hours, 3 weeks ... its going to affect both types of programs the same as you are hitting a particular bodypart only once per week.

In fact many times, because of the reommended compound exercises, HITers might actually be hitting the same body part more than the once per week. For example, deadlifts incorporate legs, so do squats .. just to a more intense degree. This would rule out the atrophy argument as you are going to stimulate leg muscles in both workouts.

For example the HIT routine I used to follow went as follows:
Each exercise was one warmup set, then 1 set to failure (and I mean balls out failure) .. moving up in weight if I ever hit 12 reps in a particular exercise.

Monday - Squats, calf raises, straight leg deadlifts

Wed - Bench press, Tricep Xtensions, Military Press, Lat raises

Fri - Deadlifts, Dips, Barbell Curls, Shrugs, Pullups

As you can see there is an overlay of bodyparts hit in just about every workout. Legs on Monday are hit again on Friday, Chest & triceps are hit on Wed are hit again on Fri doing dips.

I had great results with this, but after a while I did stall (after about 4 months of steady gains) ... I took an entire 2 weeks off from training and then started training every 4 days instead of every other day ... guess what ... the gains came back again and I kept growing. I am still progressing with steady gains to this day (now 10 months into my HIT program).

How whould those who argue against HIT tell me to change up my program so that I might yeild better results? I really am listening with an open mind here.

[muscleman_sam]

Originally posted by Wanker527
not exactly, because then your muscles get MORE time to recover than they needed and slight muscle atrophy can even set in. if the muscle has had more than the time it needs to recover and grow, then obviously your split is not optimal because you would want to hit the muscle again as soon as the muscle is healed to keep gains coming as quickly and consistently as possible, in addition to keeping protein synthesis at its peak. the only problem is with hit manytimes is that the cns is not recuped yet, and THAT'S why the extra rest is needed. hence optimal frequency is not truly possible for prolonged periods, at least. is what everyone tells you that difficult for you to comprehend? read up on the hst website, if i remember correctly it speaks of this very problem. problem solved my ass...you ALWAYS think you have the answers.

hmm, the thing i really dislike about people like you is that you seem to think that someone can't have the answers. there is a definite answer to all things, remember contridictions only exsist in man's thoughts and actions, not in his physical exsistence. those truly great people are able to exsist mentally without contridictions.

back to training talk. the slight loss of muscle is acceptable, isn't it? for if what you're saying is true no one type of training is optimal for protracted periods. are you also suggesting that the muscular and CNS recovery are totally separate? if thats true it would be easy to deduce: since they are both "injured" (they need to recover) due to the same stimulus they must be involved with one another in recovery. after all one action in one part of the body affects all others, this is the delicate balance of homeostasis.

this slight atrophy which most people mention is more than acceptable, for the gain would far outweight the loss. if it didn't, than you'd lose strength, that is if your loss was greater than the gain, you'd lose strength. my training log disagree with this.

[muscleman_sam]

Originally posted by Kane Fan
Volume and Frequency are different

also are you implying that if I do a set of Barbell Curls my traps will be as traumatized as my biceps?
if so please stop posting and start reading some information by people other then Sisco...

no, its more of a pebble in a pool of water affect. the larger the stone the larger the ripple. if you were to only stimulate your quads your hamstrings would be stimulated, but to a lesser degree. i'm pretty sure he never said that if one was to tramatize a muscle one next to it would be equally tramatized. also, sisqo's quote is totally valid.