Putting Mike Mentzers HIT to the test

[Ron Schwarz]

anyone else notice that after I write a post, DF1 always has to follow up? I've been told offline he's still obsessed with me. Teenagers living at home spend too much time on the internet these days.

I guess this needs to be said: DF1, I will NOT go out with you!

And just to keep this on-topic, we haven't really talked about how well the HIT approach works for women. Linda Jo Belsito - a world-class powerlifter who's deadlifted more than 450 pounds at a bodyweight of 154 - was trained by Dr. Ken Leistner at the Iron Island Gym. And note that she's been drug free.

This leads back to my point about how HIT is much broader in scope than just Mentzer. Another great site for info is "Maximum" Bob Whelan's - former powerlifting champion - site, www.naturalstrength.com

And here's a pic of Drew Israel, another guy I've mentioned, some call "The Human Wall", a 6'4" 310-pounder from Strong Island, New York. Drew can bench press 400x10 and deadlift 500x20. And when this guy does deadlifts he does them slooooooow. Note what he says about how slow training and injury prevention.

http://www.naturalstrength.com/5thclinsum.htm

http://www.naturalstrength.com/pics/...asp?AlbumID=21

[Dominik]

And here's a pic of Drew Israel, another guy I've mentioned, some call "The Human Wall", a 6'4" 310-pounder from Strong Island, New York. Drew can bench press 400x10 and deadlift 500x20. And when this guy does deadlifts he does them slooooooow. Note what he says about how slow training and injury prevention.

http://www.naturalstrength.com/5thclinsum.htm

http://www.naturalstrength.com/pics/...asp?AlbumID=21

Firstly, re: the photo, what's that supposed to prove? The guy is performing a "deadlift" on a squat/lunge machine. Who gives a crap for what anyone can do on a machine? What next, are you going to start counting leg press poundages as "squats?"

Secondly, what gives with all the high rep examples? Why don't you give us something to compare it to in powerlifting terms, i.e., a 1RM. What's his best lift? I'm not interested in x10, x20, x100 or until someone ****s their pants or passes out. It sounds like you're deliberately avoiding any examples where a comparison could be made.

[Defiant1]

anyone else notice that after I write a post, DF1 always has to follow up? This could have something to do with me saying I tried to **** his mom with my pencil dick. I've been secret hoping he's still obsessed with me. I get such a boner thinking about being with a real man.

I guess this needs to be said: DF1, I will NOT be making any gains for many years due to my training system/excess estrogen.


{url]http://www.naturalstrength.com/5thclinsum.htm[/url]

http://www.naturalstrength.com/pics/...asp?AlbumID=21

Notice how I imply that these guys are HITters, just a Darden implied the people in his book "Massive Muscles in 30 Days" were HITters, when in fact none were. I like to use this nonsense also.

Ron/Rob, your fresh honest approach is great.

[Dominik]

Ron/Rob, your fresh honest approach is great.

The guy truly is a crackpot. He not only passes off material from other people as if it's his own work (as Madcow busted him doing), but he lifts his old newsgroup posts from 1994 and REPOSTS them here, verbatim.

Watch this: Compare this post from a week ago with this:

Robert Spector, Jun 20 1994, 12:51 pm, misc.fitness

That falsehood has been reprinted in many (specifically
Joe Weider's) bodybuilding magazines since I believe 1986.

Where did this all stem from? It came from Dr. Fred Hatfield in an
article written for Joe Weider's Muscle & Fitness. In this article
Hatfield stated that Jones "... admitted that [his] earlier theories
were wrong; that an exercise program of one set to failure three times
a week did not work".

The truth is that Arthur Jones has said publicly that he NEVER made
this statement. The history behind this is described in detail in one
of the latest issues of IronMan magazine. In sum, it all stemmed from
when according to Jones, he had met with Hatfield and Weider back in
1986. In 1986 Jones wrote an article entitled "Exercise 1986, the
Present State of the Art, Now a Science". This article was the first
published mention of the discoveries made in Jones' ongoing research in
the field of muscular physiology.

Jones' contacted Joe Weider and informed of his discoveries along with
Fred Hatfield. Jones offered Weider the opportunity to publish this
information under certain conditions: one requirement that he publish
it in full word for word as written, with no editing (I wonder why
he would ask that of Weider ). A contract was drawn up with these
terms that was signed by Weider and Hatfield, Jones, and was witnessed
by several employees of the hotel they were at.

After this, Jones went back with Hatfield to Florida for the stated
purpose of attending some of Jones' daily medical seminars. In short,
during his visit Hatfield felt humiliated by Jones as everything that
Hatfield brought up that he believed was "new" in the field was
covered in Jones' two books that he wrote in 1970 and 1971. Hatfield
was stunned by this. So after about three days, Hatfield returned
to California having been forced to admit that Jones knew what he
was doing and that he was far ahead of Hatfield in the field.

Then in typical Joe Weider fashion, Weider did not live up to the contract
obligations. The article was never published in Weider's mag. Instead,
Hatfield wrote an article that contained many inaccuracies and falsehoods
about what he saw, including the statement above that Jones had admitted
his theories "did not work".

Anyone still yet to be convinced he's Rob Spector?

[Defiant1]

Firstly, re: the photo, what's that supposed to prove? The guy is performing a "deadlift" on a squat/lunge machine. Who gives a crap for what anyone can do on a machine? What next, are you going to start counting leg press poundages as "squats?"

Secondly, what gives with all the high rep examples? Why don't you give us something to compare it to in powerlifting terms, i.e., a 1RM. What's his best lift? I'm not interested in x10, x20, x100 or until someone ****s their pants or passes out. It sounds like you're deliberately avoiding any examples where a comparison could be made.

Because Dom, examples don't count unless they are oblique examples by HITters used to imply something that doesn't exist.

Example:

Same point with all strength athletes. There's no one set/rep/frequency scheme that is a commonality among the top athletes - or even all athletes. Why not say, "if high volume is so great, then why isn't EVERYONE using it successfully?".

- If Japanese cars are better quality than NA cars, then why does ANYBODY buy an American car?
- If buying low and selling high is the best approach to make money in the stock market, then why doesn't EVERYBODY do this?
- If Macs are better than PCs, why doesn't EVERYBODY have a Mac? So few people have Macs compared with PCs, so I guess PCs are much better, right?

OK..............but examples that show LESS use of a product/system is ok?

Basically, he says than samples of "High N" mean nothing, yet "low N" examples are valid? Or common anecdote is useless, yet anecdote of a few is a great example.

WTF?

[Defiant1]

Firstly, re: the photo, what's that supposed to prove? The guy is performing a "deadlift" on a squat/lunge machine. Who gives a crap for what anyone can do on a machine? What next, are you going to start counting leg press poundages as "squats?"

Secondly, what gives with all the high rep examples? Why don't you give us something to compare it to in powerlifting terms, i.e., a 1RM. What's his best lift? I'm not interested in x10, x20, x100 or until someone ****s their pants or passes out. It sounds like you're deliberately avoiding any examples where a comparison could be made.

Because Dom, examples don't count unless they are oblique examples by HITters used to imply something that doesn't exist.

Example:

Same point with all strength athletes. There's no one set/rep/frequency scheme that is a commonality among the top athletes - or even all athletes. Why not say, "if high volume is so great, then why isn't EVERYONE using it successfully?".

- If Japanese cars are better quality than NA cars, then why does ANYBODY buy an American car?
- If buying low and selling high is the best approach to make money in the stock market, then why doesn't EVERYBODY do this?
- If Macs are better than PCs, why doesn't EVERYBODY have a Mac? So few people have Macs compared with PCs, so I guess PCs are much better, right?

OK..............but examples that show LESS use of a product/system are ok?

Basically, he says than samples of "High N" mean nothing, yet "low N" examples are valid? Or common anecdote is useless, yet anecdote of a few is a great example.

WTF?

[Ron Schwarz]

speaking of Mentzer, I came across this excerpt from one of Matt Brzycki's "Reflections of a HITer" on this site. Sounds similar to the results DRush ahas posted.
----------------
So I'm in the weight room the other day . . . true story . . . and this dude comes up to me and asks if I'm so and so. I said yeah and he goes, "I heard yer the one who I talk to about high intensity training." I'm thinkin that this sounds like a set-up even though I'm on my home turf and I didn't wanna be fodder for somebody's yucks so I said, "Where'd you hear about high intensity training?" He told me that he read about it in some articles that Mike Mentzer wrote in the muscle mags and that he's been doing HIT for the past 3 or 4 weeks with great results. He said that his bench is up 20 pounds and his leg press is up 30 pounds. Anyway, he just wanted me to watch him train and let him know if he was doing it right. True story. Another mind twisted to HIT. And that was even before I flapped my lips. Dude got after it pretty intensely in the weight room, by the way.

----------------------

[all pro]

I don't think rapp'n RobbieRon would like this, it would seem to suggest that one set to failure only works for begginers. To bad I'm on ignore I love to watch this guy talk out of both sides of his ass at the same time.

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/...nstandards.htm

[Dominik]

OK..............but examples that show LESS use of a product/system is ok?

Basically, he says than samples of "High N" mean nothing, yet "low N" examples are valid? Or common anecdote is useless, yet anecdote of a few is a great example.

WTF?

His analogies sucked. Why do people buy PCs instead of Macs? I don't know, maybe because the technology is cheaper and because Bill Gates has a 90% monopoly on the desktop and all the crappy software they forked out for over the years runs on it. Judging by all the 1994 newsgroup crap he keeps cutting and pasting, it wouldn't surprise me if the guy was typing this stuff out on a clapped out old 386 running Win 95.

[Dominik]

Because Dom, examples don't count unless they are oblique examples by HITters used to imply something that doesn't exist.

D, precisely. He continues to actively promote it as a system for powerlifting but won't post any 1RM examples. Only x10, x20, etc. And even then they're all gym lifts most likely performed on Hammer Strength equipment. So if I can bench the max. 5 plates, 225 a side, for reps on the horizontal HS bench, that makes me a 450lb bencher for reps, with a possible raw 500lb+ 1RM? Give me a break!

Show me 1RM freeweight lifts by HIT trainees in a contest because I'm not interested in all these meaningless high rep examples performed in a gym on machines. Enough BS already.

[Defiant1]

D, precisely. He continues to actively promote it as a system for powerlifting but won't post any 1RM examples. Only x10, x20, etc. And even then they're all gym lifts most likely performed on Hammer Strength equipment. So if I can bench the max. 5 plates, 225 a side, for reps on the horizontal HS bench, that makes me a 450lb bencher for reps, with a possible raw 500lb+ 1RM? Give me a break!

Show me 1RM freeweight lifts by HIT trainees in a contest because I'm not interested in all these meaningless high rep examples performed in a gym on machines. Enough BS already.

It's funny. The answer to successful training is right in front of everyone, and these stupid ass "systems" that try to oversimplify nebulize everything. I like when people call "the set system" HVT in order to have something to argue against.

The "set system" is nothing more than what the old guys found to work better. Do it once, then do it again, then again maybe. What is the optimal amount of sets? Who the hell knows. That takes self experimentation. Everyone wants someone to tell them what is best. We can only guide one another AT BEST. Learn from the averages and start there.

Example: Is the bench press the best chest exercise? For many, yes...they are not the ones arguing about it or questioning it. For some, no. But it is still valid to start someone with it. Not come up with some convoluted crappy argument to "start with cable crossovers".

Old school natural trainers did the following:

Multiple sets (doesn't mean 20 per bp, but it could for some, it might mean 2 or 3 or 5)
Frequent training
Hard training
Basic exercises with some isos.
Avoided failure-called it training "on the nerve"
Tried to increase weight whenever possible.

The ****ing answer is right there, yet our knowledge seems to be DECREASING.

[Awnold79]

I don't know that our knowledge is decreasing per say, it's just that there is so much information out there and for beginers and intermediates it's very easy to get caught up with one person's "system" because it may work well for them.

What people really need to do is stop trying to mimik others and learn their own bodies. This takes years and it never stops. The day you stop learning about your body and how it works is the day you will reach the ultimate sticking point and go nowhere.

Defiant nailed it. The bench press might be the best exercise for smoe while dips would be for others etc. High volume routines might be the best for some while HIT might be best for others. Big names mean nothing. You should be training for you and you only. That's the only way you will ever realize your genetic potentials, or at least realize the best way for you to get there.

Every style of training has its flaws. There is no training style suited to everyone and there is no training style that will work forever without the appropriate changes. This is where all that self knowledge and a desire to move ahead comes in.

It's nice to see everyone so passionate about arguing their point. Point taken. Now take that passion and put it into the training and diet.

Now dammit somebody give me some positive reps. lol

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Why would you all want the top athletes to use HIT, HIT is for bodybuilding, athletes do track and field, different sport, do they use HIT, sure now and again and most properly HVT, sometimes.

Why would you all want the top powerlifter to use HIT, HIT is for hypertrophy of ALL the muscles, and it makes you very strong at lifting for say reps of 10, but powerlifters, only want to do the max in the big three.

Same goes for any other sport, people might use HIT or HVT now and again, but you just cannot run the 100 meters that fast with legs like platz.

I could say to you HVT show me athletes whom have used HVT all the time, sorry you can’t, mind you, I think HVT is maybe a thing of the past.

Mind you, I will not bring up all the athletes or powerlifters that have used HIT mow and again, my computer does not have enough memory for them all, hehehe,

However, here is one, whom has just posted this at Ellington’s forum,

Kerry Barnard
I placed first at the 2005 AAU National Powerlfting Championships. I weighed 264 for the meet. BP 424, DL 644.

I will now compete in the 2005 AAU World Powerlifting Championships January 29.


I do not think the bench press is that good a chest exersice at all, hi D.

ONE MORE THING,
Some people here thing HIT is ALL about one set to failure, its not at all like that, will explain more tomorrow, we do far more than one set to failure.

Wayne

[Dominik]

The ****ing answer is right there, yet our knowledge seems to be DECREASING.

Spot on. And why do people like to complicate things? Because then they can REPACKAGE it and sell it as something else. Take German Volume Training, put a little twist on it, and you can give it a brand new name and start training people with it. Bavarian Body Blasting. Same goes for systems like 5x5 which Madcow helps a lot of guys with here. Rock solid, delivers the goods, but isn't anything new. There's Bill Starr in his old book with 70's hairdo talking about it and it wasn't new then either. And nor is HIT. Instead of saying "this is an effective low volume hypertrophy system," he'd rather promote it as the answer to everything. Powerlifting, MMA, football, you name it.

I'm a big believer in going to the source. No disrespect to guys like Waterbury and Thibaudeau, they write some awesome articles and I really enjoy reading them, but I wanted to read what they've read. All the old Soviet books on strength training and periodization from Zatsiorsky, Medvedyev, Verkhoshansky, etc., the list goes on. I wanted to start there, "old school," from East to West, and I did.

As for Ron Schwarz, well my guess is he fell for HIT hook, line, and sinker in his late 20's, most likely Darden and Mentzer's books, believing it was the be all and end all of weight training. Now that he's in his 50's, he doesn't want to have any regrets about that decision so he spends his days arguing with anyone who finds fault with those training methods. And of course he's got a book to sell.

[kingfish3]

yes baby, keep the hit routines up. message me if you need any help in modifying it. Im gonna take credit for people starting on hit cause i can. Mentzer rules

[Defiant1]

yes baby, keep the hit routines up. message me if you need any help in modifying it. Im gonna take credit for people starting on hit cause i can. Mentzer rules

I see your personal training fantasies are becoming more and more real.

And Mentzer RULED. His reign has been ended due to "dirt-napping".

[Ron Schwarz]

I don't know that our knowledge is decreasing per say, it's just that there is so much information out there and for beginers and intermediates it's very easy to get caught up with one person's "system" because it may work well for them.

Yes, for beginner's they can gain on just about anything. When you get to the "advanced" stage like you, myself and others, the # of things that "work" decreases dramatically. I can't get away with doing things incorrectly like I used to.

The bench press might be the best exercise for smoe while dips would be for others etc. High volume routines might be the best for some while HIT might be best for others. Big names mean nothing. You should be training for you and you only. That's the only way you will ever realize your genetic potentials, or at least realize the best way for you to get there.

I partially agree. Most natural folks get better results from a Stuart McRobert abbreviated low volume, low frequency approach then a high volume/high frequency approach.

The # of folks in the gym that have failed using high volume is off the scale. I've seen guys quit training from this. They get frustrated, they don't get results, and plus they don't have the time anymore to be in the gym like they did when they were young.

When I was in high school and college, bodybuilding was BIG. A lot of guys trained, a lot of guys got much bigger. Years later, I'm one of the very few who is still training and and *much* bigger and stronger than I was in college (and I was big back then).

You have to also look at what kind of approach suits your lifestyle for the LONG TERM and adjust accordingly. Infrequent, abbreviate, hard training is a good long term approach. Olympic lifting, explosive lifting, doing really low resps etc., etc. is not a logical choice for the long term. That's fairly obvious.

[Defiant1]

The # of folks in the gym that have failed using high volume is off the scale. I've seen guys quit training from this. They get frustrated, they don't get results, and plus they don't have the time anymore to be in the gym like they did when they were young.

That statement is oft repeated HIT crap.

Attach some kind of causal connection, or stop using it. It's as simple as that. That is straight out of Mentzers mouth. You are saying High volume=reason for stopping. Prove it, or don't use it.

Let's look at examples we all know. Look at long term pros. Masters competitors, etc.

How many HIT guys are still training? Why wasn't Mentzer always in shape? After all, he only needed to train 1x per week for maximum results right? Therefore, he should always have been in shape. XXXXXXXXX wrong.

When I was in high school and college, bodybuilding was BIG. A lot of guys trained, a lot of guys got much bigger. Years later, I'm one of the very few who is still training and and *much* bigger and stronger than I was in college (and I was big back then).

Bull****. You said YOURSELF on YOUR HIT FAQ, that, quote:

I've never won any physique or powerlifting contests. My physique and poundages are nothing extraordinary in the least.

Your truth-telling ability is how shall we say.........non existent?

[Madcow2]

So to help some people out with Dom's point. I interspersed paragraph by paragraph Ron's story a page or so ago with Rob Spector's from 1994. They are identical. No-recent issue of Ironman, no less the latest as referenced in paragraph 3, has this story.

Ron - you are a cut/paste fool and either you are Rob Spector or you are a blatant plagiarizer just like the example the item in my signature. Why don't you take it somewhere else.

BOLD = Ron Schwarz 11/05/2005
NON-BOLD = Rob Spector 6/20/1994

That falsehood has been reprinted in many (specifically Joe Weider's) bodybuilding magazines since I believe 1986.

That falsehood has been reprinted in many (specifically Joe Weider's) bodybuilding magazines since I believe 1986.

Where did this all stem from? It came from Fred Hatfield (surprise) in an article written for Joe Weider's Muscle & Fitness. In this article Hatfield stated that Jones "... admitted that [his] earlier theories were wrong; that an exercise program of one set to failure three times a week did not work".

Where did this all stem from? It came from Dr. Fred Hatfield in an article written for Joe Weider's Muscle & Fitness. In this article Hatfield stated that Jones "... admitted that [his] earlier theories were wrong; that an exercise program of one set to failure three times a week did not work".

The truth is that Arthur Jones has said publicly that he NEVER made this statement. The history behind this is described in detail in one of the latest issues of IronMan magazine. In sum, it all stemmed from when according to Jones, he had met with Hatfield and Weider back in 1986. In 1986 Jones wrote an article entitled "Exercise 1986, the Present State of the Art, Now a Science". This article was the first published mention of the discoveries made in Jones' ongoing research in the field of muscular physiology.

The truth is that Arthur Jones has said publicly that he NEVER made this statement. The history behind this is described in detail in one of the latest issues of IronMan magazine. In sum, it all stemmed from when according to Jones, he had met with Hatfield and Weider back in 1986. In 1986 Jones wrote an article entitled "Exercise 1986, the Present State of the Art, Now a Science". This article was the first published mention of the discoveries made in Jones' ongoing research in the field of muscular physiology.

Jones' contacted Joe Weider and informed of his discoveries along with Fred Hatfield. Jones offered Weider the opportunity to publish this information under certain conditions: one requirement that he publish it in full word for word as written, with no editing. A contract was drawn up with these terms that was signed by Weider and Hatfield, Jones, and was witnessed by several employees of the hotel they were at.

Jones' contacted Joe Weider and informed of his discoveries along with Fred Hatfield. Jones offered Weider the opportunity to publish this information under certain conditions: one requirement that he publish it in full word for word as written, with no editing (I wonder why he would ask that of Weider ). A contract was drawn up with these terms that was signed by Weider and Hatfield, Jones, and was witnessed by several employees of the hotel they were at.

After this, Jones went back with Hatfield to Florida for the stated purpose of attending some of Jones' daily medical seminars. In short, during his visit Hatfield felt humiliated by Jones as everything that Hatfield brought up that he believed was "new" in the field was covered in Jones' two books that he wrote in 1970 and 1971. Hatfield was stunned by this. So after about three days, Hatfield returned to California having been forced to admit that Jones knew what he was doing and that he was far ahead of Hatfield in the field.

After this, Jones went back with Hatfield to Florida for the stated purpose of attending some of Jones' daily medical seminars. In short, during his visit Hatfield felt humiliated by Jones as everything that Hatfield brought up that he believed was "new" in the field was covered in Jones' two books that he wrote in 1970 and 1971. Hatfield was stunned by this. So after about three days, Hatfield returned to California having been forced to admit that Jones knew what he was doing and that he was far ahead of Hatfield in the field.

Then in typical Joe Weider fashion, Weider did not live up to the contract obligations. The article was never published in Weider's mag. Instead, Hatfield wrote an article that contained many inaccuracies and falsehoods about what he saw, including the statement above that Jones had admitted his theories "did not work".

Then in typical Joe Weider fashion, Weider did not live up to the contract obligations. The article was never published in Weider's mag. Instead, Hatfield wrote an article that contained many inaccuracies and falsehoods about what he saw, including the statement above that Jones had admitted his theories "did not work".

[Defiant1]

So to help some people out with Dom's point. I interspersed paragraph by paragraph Ron's story a page or so ago with Rob Spector's from 1994. They are identical. No-recent issue of Ironman, no less the latest as referenced in paragraph 3, has this story.

Ron - you are a cut/paste fool and either you are Rob Spector or you are a blatant plagiarizer just like the example the item in my signature. Why don't you take it somewhere else.

That was so painful it was almost too much for me.......


wait, who am I kidding?

[all pro]

Yes, for beginner's they can gain on just about anything. When you get to the "advanced" stage like you, myself and others, the # of things that "work" decreases dramatically. I can't get away with doing things incorrectly like I used to.



I partially agree. Most natural folks get better results from a Stuart McRobert abbreviated low volume, low frequency approach then a high volume/high frequency approach.

The # of folks in the gym that have failed using high volume is off the scale. I've seen guys quit training from this. They get frustrated, they don't get results, and plus they don't have the time anymore to be in the gym like they did when they were young.

When I was in high school and college, bodybuilding was BIG. A lot of guys trained, a lot of guys got much bigger. Years later, I'm one of the very few who is still training and and *much* bigger and stronger than I was in college (and I was big back then).

You have to also look at what kind of approach suits your lifestyle for the LONG TERM and adjust accordingly. Infrequent, abbreviate, hard training is a good long term approach. Olympic lifting, explosive lifting, doing really low resps etc., etc. is not a logical choice for the long term. That's fairly obvious.

Can this guy prove any of this ? OF COURSE NOT !

[DRush]

I don't think rapp'n RobbieRon would like this, it would seem to suggest that one set to failure only works for begginers. To bad I'm on ignore I love to watch this guy talk out of both sides of his ass at the same time.

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/...nstandards.htm

So what does this say for me? Im an anomoly i guess. This has been said before it might work for some and not others. I firmly believe not many can actually go as intense as HIT indicates you should. When I worked out using HVT, I see now what I was actually doing. When I first tried the MM hit I noticed how my body reacted ,something I never felt using HVT. The body enters that zone where you are, how you say "out of the comfort zone" This I admit is very taxing on the mind, Im sure others using HIT will agree with me on this. The more I get into this sytem the more Im learning and getting feedback from my body.My wife commented me today and this is a women I see everyday,which some of you know when you ask people who see you everyday how you look they almost always say "the same". She said I look much fuller,actually bigger all around with a bit more definition.I am noticing this too.I noticed it this weekend.I guess It took this long to figure out my own bodys needs.

[DRush]

That statement is oft repeated HIT crap.

Attach some kind of causal connection, or stop using it. It's as simple as that. That is straight out of Mentzers mouth. You are saying High volume=reason for stopping. Prove it, or don't use it.

Let's look at examples we all know. Look at long term pros. Masters competitors, etc.

How many HIT guys are still training? Why wasn't Mentzer always in shape? After all, he only needed to train 1x per week for maximum results right? Therefore, he should always have been in shape. XXXXXXXXX wrong.

I stopped HVT for 2 reasons ,halted gains and the time I was putting into it didn't balance out for what I was getting in return.In regards to how many hit guys are still training ?Doesnt matter.All someday retire and pursue other intrests doesnt matter what type of training they are using. Hell when you are a top competiter ,which is way over and above anything anyone does here, Im sure when you have proved yourself and have nothing left to prove you move on, it gets old.Look at the pumping Iron DVD.Out of all those guys on the video,only 2 were still in good shape today.Not really two. I just consider Lou, to have kept himself inshape ,as Arnold let himself go there for a while.

[cpa5oh]

So what does this say for me? Im an anomoly i guess. This has been said before it might work for some and not others. I firmly believe not many can actually go as intense as HIT indicates you should. When I worked out using HVT, I see now what I was actually doing. When I first tried the MM hit I noticed how my body reacted ,something I never felt using HVT. The body enters that zone where you are, how you say "out of the comfort zone" This I admit is very taxing on the mind, Im sure others using HIT will agree with me on this. The more I get into this sytem the more Im learning and getting feedback from my body.My wife commented me today and this is a women I see everyday,which some of you know when you ask people who see you everyday how you look they almost always say "the same". She said I look much fuller,actually bigger all around with a bit more definition.I am noticing this too.I noticed it this weekend.I guess It took this long to figure out my own bodys needs.

I hear you on the "out of the comfort zone" feeling. After deadlifts today (this was my first chest and back workout...I kinda changed the order up to where chest and back was the fourth workout) I was more exhausted than I've ever been doing anything. And two hours later here I'm still feeling that way (still feeling shaky.)

Next week is the start of my second time through the routine so hopefully I'll be as ecstatic about it as you are. I'm going to go through it a total of three times, and if it doesn't work, I'm going to try and get iron addict to help me out. As it is I have to say I really don't like lifting like this. First, on the incline press after pre-exhaust and going slow as the program suggests, all I could manage was 185x3 (I was doing 225x9 in the workout I was doing previously.) And you know how they say "fatigue makes cowards of us all?" Seems like I must be 49% quitter and 51% not quitter, because I definitely get thoughts of saying "that's enough" before I've hit failure using this routine. If the strength gains are great, though, that changes everything and I'll have a healthier state of mind towards this training.

[Defiant1]

I stopped HVT for 2 reasons ,halted gains and the time I was putting into it didn't balance out for what I was getting in return.In regards to how many hit guys are still training ?Doesnt matter.All someday retire and pursue other intrests doesnt matter what type of training they are using. Hell when you are a top competiter ,which is way over and above anything anyone does here, Im sure when you have proved yourself and have nothing left to prove you move on, it gets old.Look at the pumping Iron DVD.Out of all those guys on the video,only 2 were still in good shape today.Not really two. I just consider Lou, to have kept himself inshape ,as Arnold let himself go there for a while.

Guess what? HVT DOESN'T exist. There is no HVT. That was my point. HVT is a silly acronym developed by people pushing "systems" so that they have something to argue against. It is a way of saying "How everyone trains". It is the SET SYSTEM. Period. Is the set system wrong? Are you saying you used to do the "set system" and stopped?

LOL at using "pumping iron" as an example. That was the '75 Olympia. Mentzer was out of shape all of the time. How about Arnold in his movies? These guys stayed in shape for years. Look at the REAL old school guys, Pearl, Nubret etc Are they HITters? Hell, Jack LaLanne?

DRush, honestly, you seem pretty reasonable. I have faith you will make an informed decision after you have tried several systems.

If you eventually study periodization, you will understand why it seemed like your HVT (sic) "stopped working", and why HIT seems to work initially.....then falls flat on it's face (Awnold not withstanding. )

[all pro]

So what does this say for me? Im an anomoly i guess. This has been said before it might work for some and not others. I firmly believe not many can actually go as intense as HIT indicates you should. When I worked out using HVT, I see now what I was actually doing. When I first tried the MM hit I noticed how my body reacted ,something I never felt using HVT. The body enters that zone where you are, how you say "out of the comfort zone" This I admit is very taxing on the mind, Im sure others using HIT will agree with me on this. The more I get into this sytem the more Im learning and getting feedback from my body.My wife commented me today and this is a women I see everyday,which some of you know when you ask people who see you everyday how you look they almost always say "the same". She said I look much fuller,actually bigger all around with a bit more definition.I am noticing this too.I noticed it this weekend.I guess It took this long to figure out my own bodys needs.

Weather or not this is a shock responce because it's totally different from what you were doing or the real deal only time will tell. I'm not tied to any one system, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and I'm allways trying to learn. That's why I'm follwing your progress. In general how do feel, I mean stiff sore or tired ? How long after a work out does it take to feel like you could do it again? Believe it or not I hope this works for you. I like to see people who bust thier butts succede. So KEEP POUNDING!

[Madcow2]

Okay - this is a long post but it is going to explain once and for all some really important concepts in training that I think some people would really benefit from. Namely fitness/fatigue theory, training parameters (volume/frequency/intensity), workload, and active management of these. This will be valuable for some people in this thread and I'd really suggest reading it carefully, because this is key key key stuff no matter what training program you use and I think you'll realize about 1/2 way through that neither HIT nor HVT is very different from each other. Hopefully this helps people enlarge their knowledge framework and realize that these are not very different and both useful.


HVT vs. HIT, Intensity (sic) vs. Volume. These are all BBing constructs stemming straight from ignorance:

HVT? What is that, all other programs not meeting the HIT definition - a definition which is very difficult to pin down with any concensus?

Bottom line, 99% of BBers who run both these programs use low frequency (with HIT somtimes drifting much lower depending on who is talking), moderate to low intensity (%1RM), and the only real difference is the volume parameter in which HIT tends to be low to very low and the rest are low to moderate. Basic HIT has a built in progression mechanism. Most BBers using any other type of training don't have a fricking clue what they are doing or how to even design a program to progress - they just go in and do something and hope to get better.

There is no HVT. There is no HIT vs. HVT or Intensity (sic) vs. Volume or X vs. Y, there is only a change in training parameters and those aren't really that significant - it's really basic stuff. What's most important is some type of progression and managing these factors over time. This is why people progress.

The idea that someone coming from a period of higher volume, would lower volume for a period and attempt to systematically add capacity is pretty basic. It SHOULD work. Same with someone who has spent a period using lower volume moving into a program of higher volume where training load is properly managed and scaled. They SHOULD see progress - if not immediately then definitely when the volume and load are scaled down again. This should make sense, it's very basic stuff - probably the essense of the two phases of loading/deloading where workload is actively managed to elicit adaptation over a period.

People need to actually spend some time learning about training and how to manage it. These are basic parameters that can define any program. If you want to really grasp training and understand it people have to break out of the BBing bull****. Flat out - BBing is so damn collectively ignorant when it comes to training that it isn't even funny and these arguments that people have stem right from it and it really makes me cringe to read it.

I really recommend getting a good foundation in this stuff. Look at the Periodized Starr program. This is an example of the weekly tonnage in the core lifts over 8 weeks:

Wk 1 45,886 lbs. - Volume/Loading Phase
Wk 2 50,535 lbs. - Volume/Loading Phase
Wk 3 55,650 lbs. - Volume/Loading Phase
Wk 4 57,041 lbs. - Volume/Loading Phase
Wk 5 18,851 lbs. - Deloading/Intensity Phase
Wk 6 19,197 lbs. - Deloading/Intensity Phase
Wk 7 19,542 lbs. - Deloading/Intensity Phase
Wk 8 20,519 lbs. - Deloading/Intensity Phase

What is happening? A period of higher volume and much higher total workload measured in lbs above (component of volume and intensity) for a period afterwhich volume is slashed, intensity is increased (%1RM, meaning heavier training weights), and frequency is lowered slightly. The first phase might not even see true personal records and capacity increases - really hard loading will push someone into overreaching and performance will dip due to accrued fatigue. However, all this training stimulus is not for naught. At week 5, workload is slashed downward and the body will begin to recover and dissipate fatigue. Over the next 14-20 days weight is constantly moved up and adaptation is allowed to take place. So you get a nice progression and you wind up with some PRs in this phase.

Don't think for a second that if this phase was just run into infinity that someone who saw their results in this phase would just keep progressing. It will absolutely stop and the workload will not be high enough for a trainee to continue adapting. So - - the real core stimulus was weeks before he might have seen the progress from his work.

Now obviously this makes for a long training cycle and is just a really bad idea for a beginner or intermediate who can add weight to the bar more consistently but this is a fair model of how training is frequently arranged and how these factors are dealth with and balanced in advanced athletes (and an advanced athlete cannot add weight to their best lifts or increase reps workout to workout no matter what training method they use - it's been tried, lots of progress can still be made, but doing it that way won't last for long). I hope this is valuable for someone and is starting to shed some light on why the 3 factors, volume, intensity (%1RM), and frequency are quantitative and can be managed to layout programming. These factors have been around forever and literally prevade the training and exercise science literature. Intensity used as a % of 1RM has been around for 100 years and is basically the international standard for the term in this area. This is why you see people get irked when BBers define a tough set or hard work (which is qualitative and useless) as intensity because this is such a damn valuable term and already used very very heavily in the sport and around the world.

So anyway, here is an piece laying out the training factors: http://www.qwa.org/articles/tmethod.asp and here is a piece explaining more in depth the physiological reasons for the above program (i.e. fitness fatigue or dual factor theory): http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...rtraining.html

I hope this helps someone.

[Madcow2]

If you eventually study periodization, you will understand why it seemed like your HVT (sic) "stopped working", and why HIT seems to work initially.....then falls flat on it's face (Awnold not withstanding. )

Funny, I was doing just that when you wrote this.

[cpa5oh]

Is there a reason why, when HIT "falls flat on its face," HIT can't be periodized? I don't know exactly how you'd do that, but I'd think you could at least do some linear periodization with it. Maybe you'd train Mike Mentzer's "Ideal" routine for a few months, then switch in a Darden-esque full body routine with some not-to-failure routines. You'd be changing parameters as in the above post (just not as frequently.)

[Ron Schwarz]

Is there a reason why, when HIT "falls flat on its face," HIT can't be periodized? I don't know exactly how you'd do that, but I'd think you could at least do some linear periodization with it. Maybe you'd train Mike Mentzer's "Ideal" routine for a few months, then switch in a Darden-esque full body routine with some not-to-failure routines. You'd be changing parameters as in the above post (just not as frequently.)

Not sure what you mean by "falls flat on its face". Is that a quote from one of the loonies?

As far as "periodization" with HIT goes, here's something from the HIT FAQ on that:
------------------------
What is Periodization? Periodization is not a set routine, but a philosophy or method to vary the volume and intensity of training to optimize training adaptations by avoiding overtraining.

HIT advocates frequently make mention to the importance to changing the exercises performed, order of exercises, frequency of training and the set/rep combinations. Thus to say that HIT is “one set of 8-12 repetitions” or a “canned program” is simply erroneous.

HIT does advocate a form of “periodization”. But it is not the 1RM-based, pre-planned workouts of the traditional theoretical models with different “phases” within the “cycle”.

This is not to imply that that these models don’t “work”. They do. This is an important thing to understand - ANY training system that applies the techniques of overload and progression will “work”. HIT advocates feel that there are some definite shortcomings to periodization models - too much time is spent training sub maximally for one thing.

The real culprit of overtraining is...overtraining, i.e., training too frequently.

To prevent overtraining the cure is rest, or a reduction in training. Train up to 1-3 times/week intensely (generally).

If one is training three times a week and does not feel recovered or one is not making progress, try training two times a week. If that is still too much, try training once every five days. A good rule of thumb is to focus on reducing the volume/frequency. Most trainees find that as they grow stronger training less becomes more of a necessity rather than an option.

Train hard for 6-8 weeks and take a week off of strength training. A week away from training can help tremendously both physiologically and psychologically.

After a week off, gradually start on a new routine. A new routine could mean staying with the same exercises but changing the order or choosing new exercises. Variety is the key. You can call this “cycling your workouts” or “periodization”. It’s the same thing.
-----------------------

And here's a quote for the guys using Mentzer's approach, that I think y'all will like:
---------------------------
In one of the Gold’s gyms (going back a few years, obviously) there was a trainee performing set after set of cable crossovers in an effort to increase his pectoral size. He was about to do his 15th set when Mike Mentzer entered the gym. Those were the Mentzer heydays and he was a pretty awesome specimen, so the trainee stopped his workout to observe what Mentzer was doing. Mentzer proceeded to perform slow, controlled movements on the Nautilus Chest Flye until he reached positive failure, and then immediately went on to the Nautilus Decline Press with no rest between. The kid watching was awestruck. After this Mentzer’s pectorals were pumped enormously. After shaking his head in disbelief the kid went back to performing his next set of cable crossovers.
------------------------------

Many years later, much like the identity of "Deep Throat" was revealed, it's also now known who the trainee was in the above story.....

<pause for effect>

.....

It was DF1!