Putting Mike Mentzers HIT to the test

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

Whats all the fuss, we all like to train, so lets just get along.

You made some great points, like,
Most people using 'volume' here don't have a fricking clue about progression and program design.

And,
Wayne, I sincerely hope my posts are easier to read than yours. I can't even follow that and I know I'm not the only one.

Yep my Inglish and Gwammer is cwapish,

Thank you Wayne

[the iron addict]

The bottom line in any program is progression. Are you progressing in the core exercises? Use them as benchmarks. If the answer is yes and the rate is acceptable then obviously something is working. Personally I have no idea what most people talk about when they talk about are you HIT or 'Volume'. What is volume? From what I see people seem to choose a bunch of exercises and go in and do them. I rarely ever see a plan of progression or layout. I guess they hope that if they do some stuff, they'll be stronger next time they do some stuff. That's the one thing that HIT has, a very easy intuitive system of progression and if you are going to failure you know that you can't get any more so when you can do more, you've progressed. Most people using 'volume' here don't have a fricking clue about progression and program design.



The real issue is that none of this stuff is ever manipulated or actively used. It's a static program. Intensity (not preceived effort but %1RM) is largely fixed since when you can do more reps, your theoretical max has also increased. Volume is pre-perscribed for the most part. Frequency is low and can be made lower if recovery isn't happening - so this can be a sort of dirty periodization in that when you aren't progressing you lower frequency which under a fixed workload decreases workload and you wind up disipating fatigue and then move the frequency back. This is sloppy though and you can do a much better job if you know what you are doing even under the Mentzer HIT system.

But then you see people who are using "volume programs" here on the standard 3 day split and most of them don't move these factors either and most don't know about it.

Basic BBer "Volume Program"
Volume: Moderate
Intensity (%1RM): low to moderate
Frequency: Low

Both look pretty similar to me except that people using HIT know to try to get more reps or weight every workout. It seems a lot of other people just aimlessly go in and do more (hell maybe they train to failure on more) and hope that it's different or better or that they get some kind of progress.

These factors should not be held constant all the time. They are tools to organize training and manipulate the training stimulus. This is why cookie cutters fail and why people need to understand how to utilize this whether it's within a HIT framework or a "volume" one.

BRAVO!!!!

Again, PERFECTLY STATED!

IA

[Madcow2]

Hi there,

Whats all the fuss, we all like to train, so lets just get along.

You made some great points, like,
Most people using 'volume' here don't have a fricking clue about progression and program design.

Actually if I posted what I thought on most people's programs I'd be banned from every BBing board.

Yep my Inglish and Gwammer is cwapish,

Thank you Wayne

You might try just organizing it a little different. I understand the language barrier and I can't put it into words but your posts can be really hard to read and it's not the language or length. I'm not sure what it is frankly. It could just be me but I know a few others have mentioned it.

One thing to try maybe, are quote tags. like these but without the $ inside as I have to put something in there to break it and make it visible:

[$QUOTE=Some Username] Stuff you are quoting from someone else [$/QUOTE]


Maybe that helps some, you can also embed a quote within a quote and it works pretty nicely. This works on all VB boards I think.

EDIT: I'll use it below

Tell me of the above whom just does HVT, I will none, you seem to misunderstand , people that are not into Bodybuilding, like world class athletes, might do HIT for a couple of weeks to get bigger and stronger, or they might try HVT, but they have a different goal to us, so they will train very different from us.

Just so you know, I totally understand this. It's Ron Schwarz who insists that HIT is the greatest program for all athletic and strength endevours. That's a difficult pitch to make and impossible to support.

[Henry_s return]

Here's a goosd read from Dan John http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle....rticle=311hit2

[Dominik]

Here we go. Find me a serious strength athlete using HIT. How about olympic or powerlifting. Name, weightclass, lifts, competition, dates. You needn't bother with video, I trust official records.

I know a bunch of people who train like morons that are "pretty darn strong". Show me that any of the best in organized competition got there using HIT. This should be easy, HIT has been around forever and you have to name only one. If HIT is very viable to optimally train for strength at least someone must have been successful with it in the strength world...right?

That sums it up for me. No surprise since I've been asking him the same thing. Quantify its success. All he can come up with is an old list, compiled around 1994, with a handful of bodybuilders (Yates, Mentzer, Viator), some NFL S&C coaches implementing it (Manning, Reily, etc.), Dr. Ken, Bill Piche (his close friend and owner of a HIT site that charges $12 for subscriptions), and a guy named Tolbert. After 30 years, that's it.

I've said to him repeatedly, why not let the results speak for themselves? Of course we all know the answer to that one. Since the results aren't saying much, guys like Ron have had to don the white suit, cue the hymns, and do their best to spread the word.

[Awnold79]

^ follow my journal. Who cares if any "famous" strength athlete or whatnot use HIT. Some of the volume guys; that's the only leg they're standing on. I know HIT works because I use it and I'm still getting the results.

There is no be all end all to training, HIT or volume. It boils down to knowing what works best for you at any given time but to go out and basically say that HIT is no good because no well known people use it is pretty silly.

[Madcow2]

No one is saying HIT doesn't "work", a lot of what we talk about is in regards to optimality. Ron makes the claim that HIT is equal to, safer and better than any other program for strength. Bodybuilding is wishy washy and largely bull****. However, strength is absolute, measurable and quantifiable.

A LOT of research has gone in to strength training for athletes whether they are a pure strength athlete or simply improve performance in a sport through strength training. The bottom line is that you will not find HIT being used in this context if development of maximal strength is the goal.

There is not a single elite OL or PL who has been successful. Don't think for a second that massive research commintments by communist countries to promote their supperiority on the platform and field didn't choose to impliment an equally good training program that took a lot less time and was safer simply because they were "HVT" or "Volume" guys. Terms which only exist in bodybuilding circles BTW. They worked hard to find what works and then they used it and turned the training world on its head for a while doing it. Also, just because they use more sets doesn't mean their programing even remotely resembles the stuff you see on this board that people might label as 'volume or hvt'.

[Dominik]

^ follow my journal. Who cares if any "famous" strength athlete or whatnot use HIT. Some of the volume guys; that's the only leg they're standing on. I know HIT works because I use it and I'm still getting the results.

There is no be all end all to training, HIT or volume. It boils down to knowing what works best for you at any given time but to go out and basically say that HIT is no good because no well known people use it is pretty silly.

It works well for you and that's why I said keep doing it. I've got no interest in talking you out of something that is working for you. My issue is with Ron Schwarz. He's the one pushing it as many things. You're simply saying "hey, this is what works for me," and I have no problem at all with it. Firstly, I believe it works for you, and secondly, I say keep doing it.

And I agree, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Ron is the one promoting HIT (along with promoting his own product in the past) in ways I don't agree with and I know I'm not alone there. Let's say I was doing Arnold's routines from his book and getting results. I wouldn't take it personally if guys were criticizing it, I'd just say it works for me and I'll keep doing it for as long as it works.

I don't see what is wrong with asking him to quantify its success. It's not grasping at straws, it's a valid question. If I wrote a book on weight loss and after 30 years only a handful of people had seen results with it, the odd celebrity here and there, I couldn't claim it to be a success, could I? He has pitched it as many things and I'm simply asking the question, if it's so great then why aren't more people training that way?

[Ron Schwarz]

While Im not an expert by any means this goes to show this type of training is working for me personally.Like awnold79 said everyone is different. But one glaring question that has intrigued me since I picked up the Mentzer book is how much is enough.For example how many reps, how many sets? How can anyone say 6 sets 8-10 reps. At what point is the muscle fully stimulated to grow. This could be interesting.

You can do it one set, or you can do it in multiple sets. I agree with Lyle McDonald: If you train at a high level of intensity, you only need one set. If you train with a lower level of intensity, it will take multiple sets.

As Matt Brzycki said in one of his "Reflections" series posted on this site:

According to Dr. Roger Anoka -- a biomechanist and author of the excellent college text "Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology" -- the Overload Principle states, "To increase their size or functional ability, muscle fibers must be taxed toward their present capacity to respond." He adds: "This principle implies that THERE IS A THRESHOLD POINT THAT MUST BE EXCEEDED BEFORE AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE WILL OCCUR." I dunno about you but to me, "threshold" suggests a minimum level of muscle fatigue. Do ya gotta train to muscle failure? I dunno. But how else are ya gonna know whether you surpassed this "threshold"?

[Ron Schwarz]

^ follow my journal. Who cares if any "famous" strength athlete or whatnot use HIT.

Seriously. Since all the top bodybuilders do things completely differently, it's just plain silly to say, "that's what so-and-so does, so that's the best way". And what superhumans juiced to the gills do isn't really a good model for the rest of us, is it?

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?

...and so on

Here's a good quote <you gotta love the cut and paste functionality - such a time saver >

"We note that previous articles advocating evidence-based training protocols (35,36) have met with the objection that NSCA-style, high-volume training is much more popular than Jones’ approach among the athletic fraternity (21,112). We anticipate similar reactions to this paper, and therefore would like to make a couple of points regarding the argument that the popularity of the training methods advocated by the NSCA and others indicate that such methods are more efficacious than those of Jones and colleagues. Essentially, such individuals have argued that because the majority of athletes train in a particular manner, this must be the best way to train. This begs the question, why bother to perform scientific research at all? If such an argument is carried to its logical conclusion, rather than performing research to determine optimal training protocols, the time and money would be better spent conducting a poll of trainees to determine which method is most popular. This would then be the one that scientists should advocate. We contend that such individuals resort to such arguments purely because the scientific research does not support their position. "
--Dave Smith, Ph.D., Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University College Chester

Some of the volume guys; that's the only leg they're standing on. I know HIT works because I use it and I'm still getting the results.

But remember, it only lasts a few weeks.

There is no be all end all to training, HIT or volume. It boils down to knowing what works best for you at any given time but to go out and basically say that HIT is no good because no well known people use it is pretty silly.

Ed Zachary.

[Dominik]

You can do it one set, or you can do it in multiple sets. I agree with Lyle McDonald: If you train at a high level of intensity, you only need one set. If you train with a lower level of intensity, it will take multiple sets.

Funny thing is, your definition of intensity is screwed up. When a lot of us do multiple sets, we're actually training at a higher intensity (%1RM) than you are. You're down low in the 60%'s doing those slow concentrics and long drawn out negatives, trying to squeeze every last drop of effort from each set. Yes, you're almost ready to **** your pants but that's "momentary effort," not intensity. Meanwhile a lot of us are training at higher intensity knocking out low rep sets with heavy weights and building strength.

As Matt Brzycki said in one of his "Reflections" series posted on this site:

According to Dr. Roger Anoka -- a biomechanist and author of the excellent college text "Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology" -- the Overload Principle states, "To increase their size or functional ability, muscle fibers must be taxed toward their present capacity to respond." He adds: "This principle implies that THERE IS A THRESHOLD POINT THAT MUST BE EXCEEDED BEFORE AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE WILL OCCUR." I dunno about you but to me, "threshold" suggests a minimum level of muscle fatigue. Do ya gotta train to muscle failure? I dunno. But how else are ya gonna know whether you surpassed this "threshold"?

It's Enoka. If you weren't always cutting and pasting Googled quotes and took time to read his book instead, you'd have picked that up straight away.

[Madcow2]

Well since I know you guys are easy to find here, I just posted a really good interview with Glenn Pendlay and Mark Rippetoe on programing for lifters and atheltes. This covers from the novice all the way up as well as touching on periodization (why and when it should be used as well as when it shouldn't), Westside and why conjugate method is so very useful to this sport, Bulgarian style training in OL and why frequency can be so outrageously high for the OLs, and also nutshell's what Glenn's progression of training a beginner OL and how that training changes over time to where they are the some of the best in the country and competing at nationals.

If you haven't had exposure to a lot of this stuff and don't really understand the how and why programing variables are tailored to an athelte and systematically altered, this is a really good ice breaker. Even if you never use any of it, it's a very 'everyday' easy to understand piece.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=617952

[Dominik]

Well since I know you guys are easy to find here, I just posted a really good interview with Glenn Pendlay and Mark Rippetoe on programing for lifters and atheltes. This covers from the novice all the way up as well as touching on periodization (why and when it should be used as well as when it shouldn't), Westside and why conjugate method is so very useful to this sport, Bulgarian style training in OL and why frequency can be so outrageously high for the OLs, and also nutshell's what Glenn's progression of training a beginner OL and how that training changes over time to where they are the some of the best in the country and competing at nationals.

If you haven't had exposure to a lot of this stuff and don't really understand the how and why programing variables are tailored to an athelte and systematically altered, this is a really good ice breaker. Even if you never use any of it, it's a very 'everyday' easy to understand piece.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=617952

It's a good read MC, thanks. I've got Rippetoe's Starting Strength book which I'd recommend to anyone interested in the finer points of the big lifts, especially if they're going to be teaching them.

[Jotun]

While I don't think HIT is the best way to train for athletes, it can be extremely effective for the recreational lifter. I used it successfully for several years and it took me from 150lbs to 235lbs, and I bench pressed 450 while using it (yes, freeweight bench press, no shirt). However, my version of HIT was a bit more frequent with workouts than most people's idea of HIT. I worked each bodypart twice a week for 1-2 sets each. Workouts were quick, hard, and fit into my busy lifestyle perfectly.
With less frequency I just never seemed to progress; I had to hit each bodypart hard twice a week to see results. I even saw some results while hitting each bodypart 3 times a week at one point, but burned out quickly on that frequency.

I'm not taking any sides on this issue, but it's just as ridiculous to claim HIT is useless as it is to claim HIT is the best. HIT is just another tool to sculpt your physique; some people may not need it, some people may find it very suitable for their goals.

By the way, it was Iron Addict's guidance years ago on the GF board and Animal's board that really fine tuned my HIT workouts; the man knows his stuff.

[NJNPC]

While I don't think HIT is the best way to train for athletes, it can be extremely effective for the recreational lifter. I used it successfully for several years and it took me from 150lbs to 235lbs, and I bench pressed 450 while using it (yes, freeweight bench press, no shirt). However, my version of HIT was a bit more frequent with workouts than most people's idea of HIT. I worked each bodypart twice a week for 1-2 sets each. Workouts were quick, hard, and fit into my busy lifestyle perfectly.
With less frequency I just never seemed to progress; I had to hit each bodypart hard twice a week to see results. I even saw some results while hitting each bodypart 3 times a week at one point, but burned out quickly on that frequency.

I'm not taking any sides on this issue, but it's just as ridiculous to claim HIT is useless as it is to claim HIT is the best. HIT is just another tool to sculpt your physique; some people may not need it, some people may find it very suitable for their goals.

By the way, it was Iron Addict's guidance years ago on the GF board and Animal's board that really fine tuned my HIT workouts; the man knows his stuff.

what did your routine look like?

[the iron addict]

If you want to see what style routines I write, please see my board:

http://www.ironaddicts.com/forums/index.php?

There are many examples there. However paying clients are NOT allowed to post their INDIVIDUAL routines. They are written for the INDIVIDUAL and not cookie cutter.

These days I mostly write westside barbell for BB'er variations. They are low-mid volume and strenght based and also do great from a size standpoint.

Iron Addict

[Madcow2]

These days I mostly write westside barbell for BB'er variations. They are low-mid volume and strenght based and also do great from a size standpoint.

Iron Addict

Whoa - way wrong. BBers can't train like that. That's the wrong kind of muscle. If you take a 150lbs kid and turn him into a 220lbs man by getting big and strong on the core exercises he's missing the boat and his physique will lack in some intangible way that no one really understands or can identify. BBers have to pay their dues. That means a lot of machine and isolation movements. Hammer anal ass squeezes supersetted with Jane Fonda's workout (1978 version is the real deal). And they have to spend at least $200 a month on supplements to make sure their trace mineral intake is perfect - that's more important than actually eating food.

You probably aren't even using the Weider muscle confusion and instinctive training principles correctly - you can't have a training plan and use these, they can do whatever they want and even not train when they feel like it. Better stop now before those guys get too big and strong without forging themselves in the fires of Muscle and Fitness.

[all pro]

At what point is the muscle fully stimulated to grow. This could be interesting.

You might as well ask what is the meaning of life. The answer to both questions is the same. Everyone is different. The problem is SOME of the hitters [who shall remain nameless] think that H.I.T is the answer to all things. Coulde you see yourself on the field this Sunday playing football? Oh and maybe I missed this but just wondering why did you switch from squats to leg press?
P.S. KEEP POUNDING!

[DRush]

^ follow my journal. Who cares if any "famous" strength athlete or whatnot use HIT. Some of the volume guys; that's the only leg they're standing on. I know HIT works because I use it and I'm still getting the results.

There is no be all end all to training, HIT or volume. It boils down to knowing what works best for you at any given time but to go out and basically say that HIT is no good because no well known people use it is pretty silly.

I agree ,this is the answer to all this mess here. I tried a program out of the blue, went in to completly different type of training I had ever used and it is working, maybe This is what is best for me, im sure Ill have to fine tune down the road, but at least I have a base to start with. I really dont want to get into a pissing contest about which training system is better, everyone is different. For all the people that gain on a system Im sure thousands you will never hear from fail from that same system. It all comes down to education and common sense.If you are open and willing to try something and read your bodys feedback as to what works you should have no problem designing your own routines. I think newbies comming into the game seeing so much conflicting info about this way to workout is better than the other when the behind the scenes is some entity pushing that type of training for a reasons unknown I think that is a disgrace to us all. Its all a big buisness. it makes me laugh when i read a muscle mag and see Ronnie Colman pushing muscle tech products like he uses them. Sure workout like me (Ronnie) take Muscletech products and you will look like me. Funny thing is alot of people fall for this. That why when we have disscussions like this I like to see all sides so people reading can make informed desicions.

Also when people quote others accomplishments to solidify why that type of training is better is weak at best. We do not know the persons background or anything just posting #s is a start but it only shows the end product, we need to know how they got there. We dont care about the destination , just the journey of getting there.

[DRush]

You might as well ask what is the meaning of life. The answer to both questions is the same. Everyone is different. The problem is SOME of the hitters [who shall remain nameless] think that H.I.T is the answer to all things. Coulde you see yourself on the field this Sunday playing football? Oh and maybe I missed this but just wondering why did you switch from squats to leg press?
P.S. KEEP POUNDING!

Well getting the answer to meaning of life Im sure would be a bit more comlplicated than what I asked. Im sure there is some scientific information that puts it in the ballpark, its not some mystical event when you grow muscle.I dont understand the question about playing football on Sunday? I switched from squats to leg presses because in the the routine says to substitute excercises as needed. I needed to change for a few reasons being that the leg press machine is a vertical 45 degree, and it puts a little more stress than I like on my knees. Since I am incorperating 15 second neagtives into my routine I cannot do them without spotters in the smith rack during squats so I do them immediatly following my squats on the leg press machine. Plus I wanted to keep the 3 core movements(deads,squats bench) in my routine to gauge progression like someone else here said ,and I think that is a good idea.

[Madcow2]

Plus I wanted to keep the 3 core movements(deads,squats bench) in my routine to gauge progression like someone else here said ,and I think that is a good idea.

That was me. Since you are interested I'll go into more detail since it's really important no matter what kind of training you are applying. A good thing to do is to track these during the training cycle but also over longer periods of time. Let's say you did substitute out the squat entirely (not a great idea for any real length of time but for the sake of argument). You design training around X and Y exercises in place of the squat. Now, when you swap around exercises, you are going to get better at them workout to workout for a while and you'll seem to be progressing. So now you've put a given amount on your X and Y.

The problem occurs that a lot of people swap exercises around all the time and talk about all the progression they are making, yet a year from now they are still squatting 225x8 in the rack and that hasn't changed. Well, if X and Y have really made you significantly and fundementally stronger, after an acclimation period of reintroducing the squat, you should be setting personal records in the squat with this new capacity from X and Y.

This is what frequently doesn't happen. As Glenn Pendlay put it in that interview above (which is really good reading by the way) you are changing the means of training but you are not getting progression. This is why tracking those big proven lifts are important. That might be 1RM for some, for others a 5RM or 5x5 or 8RM or whatever. Regardless, when those lifts move up you are fundementally stronger and providing you've been eating enough and not training in a pure neural range (i.e. very low reps all the time) over the mid to long term hypertrophy will move in line with that increase.

Hope that helps but setting goals for these lifts, planning progression, and tracking them over time is what gives you systematic progress and quantifiable results allowing you to evaluate the success of whatever training protocol you are using at the time.

[DRush]

That was me. Since you are interested I'll go into more detail since it's really important no matter what kind of training you are applying. A good thing to do is to track these during the training cycle but also over longer periods of time. Let's say you did substitute out the squat entirely (not a great idea for any real length of time but for the sake of argument). You design training around X and Y exercises in place of the squat. Now, when you swap around exercises, you are going to get better at them workout to workout for a while and you'll seem to be progressing. So now you've put a given amount on your X and Y.

The problem occurs that a lot of people swap exercises around all the time and talk about all the progression they are making, yet a year from now they are still squatting 225x8 in the rack and that hasn't changed. Well, if X and Y have really made you significantly and fundementally stronger, after an acclimation period of reintroducing the squat, you should be setting personal records in the squat with this new capacity from X and Y.

This is what frequently doesn't happen. As Glenn Pendlay put it in that interview above (which is really good reading by the way) you are changing the means of training but you are not getting progression. This is why tracking those big proven lifts are important. That might be 1RM for some, for others a 5RM or 5x5 or 8RM or whatever. Regardless, when those lifts move up you are fundementally stronger and providing you've been eating enough and not training in a pure neural range (i.e. very low reps all the time) over the mid to long term hypertrophy will move in line with that increase.

Hope that helps but setting goals for these lifts, planning progression, and tracking them over time is what gives you systematic progress and quantifiable results allowing you to evaluate the success of whatever training protocol you are using at the time.

Great post!

[Rane14]

Great post!

second that

[the iron addict]

You probably aren't even using the Weider muscle confusion and instinctive training principles correctly - you can't have a training plan and use these, they can do whatever they want and even not train when they feel like it. Better stop now before those guys get too big and strong without forging themselves in the fires of Muscle and Fitness.

Louis Simmons said it perfectly:

"Bodybuilding magazines have WREAKED strength training in America".

7 out of 10 questionnaires on average I receive from new training clients have a statement such as:

I don't care about strength at all, I just want to get huge.

WTF???

While I have seen quite a few very strong guys that were not very big, I have NEVER seen a really big guy that didn't have at least a decent strength level.

Absolute strength is not the be all, end all in BB'ing, but until you have at least a solid strength foundation it should be your prime goal. And that does not just mean a big bench. It means big numbers in all the primary movement planes on the big coumpound lifts, squats, benches, deads, rows, overhead pressing. Hitting everything from all angles at every workout to ensure "complete development" is pretty useless activity for those guys that don't have any development to speak of.

Iron Addict

[Ron Schwarz]

7 out of 10 questionnaires on average I receive from new training clients have a statement such as:

I don't care about strength at all, I just want to get huge.

WTF???

While I have seen quite a few very strong guys that were not very big, I have NEVER seen a really big guy that didn't have at least a decent strength level.

Absolute strength is not the be all, end all in BB'ing, but until you have at least a solid strength foundation it should be your prime goal. And that does not just mean a big bench. It means big numbers in all the primary movement planes on the big coumpound lifts, squats, benches, deads, rows, overhead pressing. Hitting everything from all angles at every workout to ensure "complete development" is pretty useless activity for those guys that don't have any development to speak of.

Well said. I agree. Work for strength, and size will come as well.

One of my favorite quotes:
“I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it’s just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong? Obviously!” -- Dr. Ken Leistner

[Defiant1]

Well said. I agree. Work for strength, and size will come as well. Of course, I will disagree that the systems used for strength are the best, and will continue to push HIT though less strength trainers use it than even bodybuilders use it. I constantly contradict myself. I will say that strength is primary yet push a system that is frankly outdated and laughed at by the strength community.

One of my favorite quotes:
sing along...."I love HIT, you love HIT, we're all "Arthurs" family with one set, never more, and a kiss from a sailor, won't you tell me you train to failure." -- Dr. Flibberty Flooberty

I think "Barney" was a HITter....

[Dominik]

Work for strength, and size will come as well.

That's all good and well, but if you've progressed beyond the beginner-intermediate level, there are far more effective ways to train for strength than a system based on:

* low frequency/low volume
* one set per exercise to failure
* no pattern of load progression beyond trying to lift more weight every week, ad infinitum

And for powerlifting, consider it's:

* fundamentally opposed to explosive lifting (it advocates SLOW LIFTS instead)
* is opposed to training near your 1RM (Hello? Powerlifting is all about demonstrating your 1RM)

So we've got a system that advocates only 1-2 workouts a week, one set per exercise, taking each set to total failure, involves no load progression outside of trying to lift more weight or do more reps each week, forever), avoids all forms of explosive lifting and instead prescribes slow submaximal lifting, and is against training near your 1RM, which goes against the whole point of powerlifting. Finally, Zatsiorsky and many other strength training experts claim that at least 3 training sessions a week should be scheduled to increase strength, with 2 sessions a week being used to retain strength.

[Dominik]

One of my favorite quotes:
“I am fond of telling doubting trainees that it’s just a matter of always adding weight to the bar, adding another repetition, If you could get to the point where you’re squatting 400 lbs for 20 reps, stiff-legged deadlifting 400 lbs for 15 reps, curling 200 for 10 reps, pressing 200 for 10 reps, doing 10 dips with 300 lbs around your waist, and chinning with 100 pounds, don’t you think you would be big - I mean awfully big? And strong? Obviously!” -- Dr. Ken Leistner

Once again, all good and well, but what is your strategy for reaching those targets? Not everyone who trains for strength is anywhere near as big as you'd expect.

My brother is around 180-185lbs and puts much bigger guys to shame in the gym. Incline presses 110lb dumbbells for 6-8 reps. Dips for 8-10 with 110 on a belt. He's been training for 2 years. Does he look huge? No. More athletic looking. The point being, it's not all about size because he's much stronger than he looks.

Of course it's pointless trying to explain all this to you because you completely dismiss the neural factors involved in developing strength. You think it's all about muscle size. Your "train for strength and get big approach" doesn't really make sense because you're not really training for strength following those principles I listed earlier: what you do is low volume hypertrophy training, period.

[Defiant1]

Once again, all good and well, but what is your strategy for reaching those targets? Not everyone who trains for strength is anywhere near as big as you'd expect.

My brother is around 180-185lbs and puts much bigger guys to shame in the gym. Incline presses 110lb dumbbells for 6-8 reps. Dips for 8-10 with 110 on a belt. He's been training for 2 years. Does he look huge? No. More athletic looking. The point being, it's not all about size because he's much stronger than he looks.

Of course it's pointless trying to explain all this to you because you completely dismiss the neural factors involved in developing strength. You think it's all about muscle size. Your "train for strength and get big approach" doesn't really make sense because you're not really training for strength following those principles I listed earlier: what you do is low volume hypertrophy training, period.

Damned straight.

[all pro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron/Rob Schwarzenspector
Well said. I agree. Work for strength, and size will come as well. Of course, I will disagree that the systems used for strength are the best, and will continue to push HIT though less strength trainers use it than even bodybuilders use it. I constantly contradict myself. I will say that strength is primary yet push a system that is frankly outdated and laughed at by the strength community.

One of my favorite quotes:
sing along...."I love HIT, you love HIT, we're all "Arthurs" family with one set, never more, and a kiss from a sailor, won't you tell me you train to failure." -- Dr. Flibberty Flooberty

I think "Barney" was a HITter....
HA HA HAAAA! I'm still wiping the tears. D1 You are the "MAN" !