I need someone to completely explain HIT for me

[B.b. in stress!]

I may sound like a noob, yet even though i researched practically everything about nutrion, exercise programs, etc., the only thing i dont know is the HIT program. ive searched for it on the website and on the forums and never found the info i was looking for. basically, all i know is that mike mentzner popularized it.

So can someone make like an outline for the HIT program? it would b helpful to give me a link. when i mean outline, I mean it to look like this outline for the max-ot program:

Max-Ot:
1. Train only 1 or 2 muscle groups per workout/day.
2. Do 4 to 6 reps per set.
3. Do 6 to 9 total heavy sets per muscle group.
4. Rest 2 to 3 minutes between sets. (STR)
5. Each workout should last approximately 30 to 40 minutes.
6. Train each muscle group once every 5 to 7 days. (ITR)
7. Take a 1 week break from training every 8 to 10 weeks.

basically, straight and to the point. all help is greatly appreciated. thx!

[iountcare]

My understanding of hiit is that you want to raise your heart rate rapidly and then let it slow down before raising it again.

e.g (i used this and it worked very well)

Treadmill
0-3min warmup - medium walk at medium incline
3-4min run as fast as you can at medium incline
4-7min medium walk at medium incline
7-9min fast walk at maximum incline
9-11min medium walk at medium incline
11-12 run as fast as you can at medium incline
12-15 medium walk at medium incline
15-17 fast walk at maximum incline

and on and on

[legends159]

My understanding of hiit is that you want to raise your heart rate rapidly and then let it slow down before raising it again.

e.g (i used this and it worked very well)

Treadmill
0-3min warmup - medium walk at medium incline
3-4min run as fast as you can at medium incline
4-7min medium walk at medium incline
7-9min fast walk at maximum incline
9-11min medium walk at medium incline
11-12 run as fast as you can at medium incline
12-15 medium walk at medium incline
15-17 fast walk at maximum incline

and on and on

I think thats HIIT and not HIT. the extra I in HIIT is interval. I could be totally off though.

[B.b. in stress!]

yes, i mean HIT as in High Intensity Training associated with weights. I do use High Intensity Interval Training though.

thx for answering though

[iountcare]

yes, i mean HIT as in High Intensity Training associated with weights. I do use High Intensity Interval Training though.

thx for answering though

sorry about that, thought it was the same thing. Maybe i can learn something as well.

[speagle]

I know there are some varieties to HIT, but according to Mike Mentzer, it is extremely intense training for short amounts of time, with a lot of rest in between workouts.

As far as i understand (and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, or add more to this) Mentzer would like to pre-exhaust the bodypart he was training with an exercise that nearly isolates the muscle. Then, without any rest, he would move to a more compound movement for the same bodypart.

Example for Chest - begin with an isolating movement (dumbell fly or pec deck) ONE set to Failure with a rep range of 6-10, and then move directly to a compound movement such as flat bench or incline bench to muscular failure again, with a slightly lower rep range ~3 i think??

The philosophy is that if you were to do a set of bench press to failure without the pre-exhaust exercise, your supplementary muscles (ie. shoulders and triceps) would cause you to end the exercise before your chest if fully fatigued. By isolating the chest prior to the bench press, when performing bench press, now the triceps and shoulders have an advantage and can last as long as the chest muscles during the lift.


HIT also discusses 3 types of muscular failure. Positive, negative, and static failures. On a curl, positive being the motion against gravity, negative being the downward motion with gravity, static being holding the weight somewhere in the movement.

Since positive failure happens before static failure and before negative failure, HIT emphasizes both static holds, as well as working a muscle to negative failure.

Since taking a muscle to total failure positively and negatively is very intense, Mentzer is an advocate of 1 set per exercise. He also says the muscle takes upwards of 4-7 days (or longer) until another workout is completed.

Therefore, with a Mentzer style HIT program, workouts are only 1 - 2 x per week, and they should only last 15-30 minutes.

There are positives and negatives to HIT, and again this is just one (I think the original) HIT, but there are others that are more revised. There are issues of periodization and people who oppose HIT often question CNS fatigue.

There is plenty more that can be added, but i will leave it at that for now.

[Guinness5.0]

I may sound like a noob...<SNIP>...the only thing i dont know is the HIT program.

Um.... you might want to rethink that comment.

Be leary of learning HIT on this site in particular. Lots of dogmatic followers who think they know it all yet in reality are obsessed with flawed logic and physiological fallacy.

If you wnat to learn about training in general and how the body reacts to it rather than a particular mode of training (which is what ANYONE should be doing anyway) you'd be best served to steer clear of sources who claim to know the 'one' way to do something right. The book Supertraining by Mel Siff comes to mind as a study on how to go about training in an intelligent manner - pretty technical but eye opening and non-dogmatic.

The more you look into it, the more you'll realize that the diehard HITers are basically close-minded and ignorant. THat's not to say HIT is worthless, but rather it's a caution against the horrendous info you're likely to receive on this topic. Just be open minded and look at this stuff objectively. Don't fall for flawed logic and ridiculous claims.

/rant

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

Um.... you might want to rethink that comment.

Be leary of learning HIT on this site in particular. Lots of dogmatic followers who think they know it all yet in reality are obsessed with flawed logic and physiological fallacy.

If you wnat to learn about training in general and how the body reacts to it rather than a particular mode of training (which is what ANYONE should be doing anyway) you'd be best served to steer clear of sources who claim to know the 'one' way to do something right. The book Supertraining by Mel Siff comes to mind as a study on how to go about training in an intelligent manner - pretty technical but eye opening and non-dogmatic.

The more you look into it, the more you'll realize that the diehard HITers are basically close-minded and ignorant. THat's not to say HIT is worthless, but rather it's a caution against the horrendous info you're likely to receive on this topic. Just be open minded and look at this stuff objectively. Don't fall for flawed logic and ridiculous claims.

/rant

Yep I suppose you are right there to an extent, however if someone picked up Supertraining, with a slim body, they would most properly still be reading it three months later, confused and still with a "slim" body, on the other hand pick up a book by Ellington Darden, and the slim person in six weeks would be looking far better.

I myself am not close-minded and ignorant. Point me to any of “Darden/Jones” flawed logic, ridiculous claims and physiological fallacy, and I will do my best at defending it, or saying it is wrong.

Wayne

[kethnaab]

the variation of HIT I have followed in the past with success was rather similar to Dorian Yates' version.

I typically did 2-3 sets per bodypart, using some rest/pause, and I would train each bodypart approx 1 time per week

hit plateaus pretty quickly. other HIT stuff just didn't get it done for me at all.

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

the variation of HIT I have followed in the past with success was rather similar to Dorian Yates' version.

I typically did 2-3 sets per bodypart, using some rest/pause, and I would train each bodypart approx 1 time per week

hit plateaus pretty quickly. other HIT stuff just didn't get it done for me at all.

You say HIT plateaus quickly, you did not change the variables enoght, and you should see very good and long gains.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

Here are some goods sites to answer your questions.

http://www.baye.com/

http://www.drdarden.com/

http://groups.msn.com/HighIntensityT...ewsletter.msnw

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hitdigest/

Wayne

[kingfish3]

i disagree, its the volume lifters that are ignorant . I dont know any hitters that are closed minded.

[speagle]

By the way, to clarify what i explained in a previous post, I tried to simply give you information about HIT. I am not an advocate for HIT, but i do not bash it either.

It seems hard to talk about this subject online without getting into arguments over training styles. Must be all the testosterone or something. Anyway, I've never tried HIT, although I will give it a try in the near future, but if you are looking for any more explanation, let me know.

[waynelucky]

Hi all,

Here I will try to define, only “some” of the aspects of the original H.I.T. Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden.

INTENSITY
High intensity training is going all out, it is taking each set to one’s absolute limit, be that on machine or free weight, (one set of ten repetitions, done in the normal 2/4 speed Equals 60 sec. before forced reps. And negatives) it is a commitment to work as hard as possible while in the gym without socializing, you will have plenty of time to clock the girls after training, it is training to momentary muscular failure, it is possible, however to work beyond positive failure. Forced reps can be performed at the end of a normal set; this is the first way to work beyond positive failure.

The other way is to incorporate negative reps into your training, for negative reps, your partner must lift the weight for you, and then it is your job to lower the weight in 8 to 10 seconds after muscular failure has occurred or after positive failure and forced reps. have been performed. Negative only can then be applied, this method is indeed a very intense way to train; too much of this kind of training would quickly lead to overtraining.

So you ask is failure done on every H.I.T. workout, no it is not but you need to use your own judgement on that, for the beginner starting A H.I.T. program would be working out each bodypart three times per week.

FORM
Form or style of performance, try to always good form when lifting.

Advanced techniques
We here at H.I.T. Specialize quite a lot, say we would be doing the basic routine below, well after a few months at that, we my still do the routine, but specialise on say the biceps for 2 to 4 weeks, and the shoulders and so on.

SUPER SLOW
10/5, 10 seconds lifting the weight 5 seconds lowering, working in the 4 to 8 rep range 4 reps = 60sec. 8 reps = 120sec. To use the S/S take about 40% off what you normally use for 10 repetitions at 2/4.

STAGE REPS
work 20 sec. in each stage of a lift, divide the lift into 1/3 segments working up to 30 sec. in each stage, you work from the hardest stage first to the easiest, working in the 60sec. to 90sec. range,

1¼ SYSTEM
once your in the fully contracted position of a lift lower 1 ¼ back down again then return to the contracted position, working in the 6 to 12 rep range,
neg. (negative only) pick a weight that is 40% heavier than you normally use and just lower it for a count of 10 sec. for 6 to 12 reps,

BREAKDOWNS OR DROP SETS
after you have gone to failure, immediately have a breakdown, drop set (nor not a mental one) reduce the weight by say 20% 40% or even 60% so you can keep the reps going on, then maybe reduce the weight again and try some more reps to failure sets in (then you can have a mental breakdown hehehe)
Most people find higher rep range better for the legs.

FATIGUE
I or quite a lot of people I have trained with, have not suffered much the fatigue, however there are lots who will, as I have just learnt, from another thread, especially if you have a full time sport as well as your H.I.T. training, so use the periodization and NTF, wisely

PERIODIZATION
Learn to plan your routines, later on when you have done H.I.T. for a few weeks, to get longer results in size and strength, you could for four weeks use a lower repetition format, of 6 to 8 reputations, then the next 4 weeks 8 to 12, then 15 to 20, and every four months take a full week of, this is just a small example of how to use periodization.

N.T.F. (NOT TO FAILURE)
About 20% on the H.I.T. forums, after using H.I.T. for some time, find better gains in the NTF, which was introduced as early in the books as 1984, in The Nautilus Bodybuilding Book.

PRE-EXHAUSTION
Which Arthur or Ellington did not invent but poperlized it vary highly.
There is single and double pre-exhaustion, and double double pre-exhaustion. Single you do a isolation exercise followed immediately (in less that three seconds, yes three seconds) by a compound movement, or double pre-exhaustion which is two isolation movements followed by a compound movement, or a compound followed by isolation followed by compound.

Double double pre-exhaustion, is two isolation movements followed by a compound movement,
Rest two min. then again two isolation movements followed by a compound movement,

Alternately, double double pre-exhaustion, is a compound followed by isolation followed by compound, rest two min. then again, a compound followed by isolation followed by compound

Its damn result producing, I really love the effects. If not over done.

Here is what Casey Viator done one night at the age of 19,
Leg press 750IB 20 reps – leg extension 225IB 20 reps – full squat 502IB 13 reps

Pre-Exhaustion Cycles. Biceps
1. Biceps curl with barbell, standing, immediately followed by lat machine pulldown behind neck
2. Preacher curls with barbell, immediately followed by chin-up, negative only
3. Supine dumbbell curl, immediately followed by lat machine pulldown to chest
4. Alternate dumbbell curl, immediately followed by bent over rowing with underhand grip

Pre-Exhaustion Cycles: Triceps
1. Triceps extension with one dumbbell held in both hands, immediately followed by parallel dip
2. Lying triceps extension with barbell, immediately followed by bench press with narrow grip
3. Lat machine pressdown, immediately followed by press behind neck with barbell
4. Nautilus multi triceps machine, immediately followed by parallel dip, negative only

Double Pre-Exhaustion Cycles. Biceps
1. Preacher curl with dumbbells, immediately followed by biceps curl with barbell, standing, immediately followed by chin-up, negative only
2. Preacher curl with barbell, immediately followed by Nautilus multi biceps machine, immediately followed by lat machine pulldown with wide grip
3. Biceps curl with barbell, standing, immediately followed by incline dumbbell curl, seated, immediately followed by bent over rowing with underhand grip
4. One repetition chin up, thirty seconds up and thirty seconds down, immediately followed by preacher curl with barbell, immediately followed by chin-up, negative only
5. Lat machine pulldown to chest, immediately followed by supine dumbbell curl, immediately followed by bent over rowing with wide grip
6. Wide grip chin up, immediately followed by biceps curl with wide grip, and immediately followed by lat machine pulldown to chest


If you would want to know any more pre-exhaustion for different bodyparts just say.

NEGATIVE ONLY TRAINING
Negative training, until 1972, few, if any, bodybuilders had ever tried negative only exercise. In the fall of that year, Arthur Jones wrote an article for iron man on negative training. As negative training is from the H.I.T. style of training. Negatives are best preformed as follows; first reduce the weight you can normally handle for 10 reps, in the 2 sec. up 4 sec. down range by 40%, then in the 6 to 12 rep range.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Part two.

(1) H.I.T. repetitions are timed, the hardest and most intense reps are 1sec up 2 sec down, but a beginner should use a slower speed to get their form right, like 2 sec. up 4 sec. down, is the average, we also do 4 x 4 and super slow.
Also there are specialized, exercises, stage reps, super super slow, 1 and ¼ system, negative only, breakdown, drop sets, sets, pre-exhaustion, and many more, we also do full body specialized cycles, and specialize on lagging bodypart, and that equals a form of periodization see below, we always train with a watch, which bleeps out the seconds. Then you know when you have done your desired amount of reps exactly.

(1) To clear the one set to failure, but its not always one set for each muscle group to failure, but it is mostly one set to failure per exercise, but not always.

(2) IT’S NOT ONLY ONE EXERCISE PER BODYPART TO FAILURE, IT IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT EXERCISES FOR THE SAME BODYPART TO FAILURE

(3) below is a typical H.I.T. mass building routine, (but we do lots of other things, high volume, sometimes lower volume, we might specialise on a bodypart for 1 to up to 4 weeks) taken from Ellington Darden's super high intensity book, and you will find routines similar with all H.I.T. training, with higher volume and lower, there are also cycles lasting from 4 to 10 weeks, which are a mixture of full mass building routines and certain body part specialization.
Alternatively, you can specialize on a certain body part from 1 week to up to three weeks, but you would not specialise on the same muscle group until another three months.
When starting this routine or any cycle, you would first take a rest from exercising for ten days.

Do one warm up set of 10 reps with 60% of your 1RM, and then after 3 to 5 minutes, do a full work set to full failure, with 80% of your 1RM.

Leg ext. 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Leg curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Donkey calf raise with partner 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Squat 1 set x 12 to 15 reps
Pullover on machine 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Press behind neck 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Behind neck chin up 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Bench press 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Bent over row 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Dips 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Triceps ext. or pressdown 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Upright rows or lateral raise 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
S.L.D.L. x 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Reverse curl with thick handled bar 1 set x 8 to 12 reps
Trunk curl 1 set x 8 to 12 reps

About that one set to failure, as I said it does not mean one set per muscle group, in the above do you see something. Its 5 exercises for the legs, about 2 direct for the shoulders and about 5 indirect for shoulders, about 5 for lats, about 3 for chest, 4 for biceps, 4 for triceps, and a lot for forearms and ab’s, see what I am getting at.

At first, a beginner, should first rest for 2 weeks, that is if he has been using another bodybuilding style, then that person will work out each bodypart 3 times per week, (that is each bodypart three times per week,) for a few weeks, then work your way after the first couple of training sessions to training to failure, then when you have come more accustomed to failure, try and have forced and negatives.

Now the next stage will have to be done differently for each individual, as we are all different, after a few a few weeks or when plateau is reached, on 1 of the weekly workouts use the HIT, N.T.F. (not to failure)

Then you could split your routeing, into training each bodypart twice per week on a four day spit, or later on working each bodypart once per week on a four days split, you could still now and again train one or two bodyparts twice per week, it’s solely up to the individual, and the recovery ability

Or after a few more weeks go from 3 times a week, next week 2 times per week, next week 3 times per week, alternate like this for a few weeks months, then go to 2 times per week.

Then maybe you could reduce your overall sets, you could for a few weeks do mostly compound movements, you don’t need a lot of these movements, as one compound movements works a lot of muscles, then for a few weeks use lots of isolation movements, hitting each individual muscle very hard, unlike the compound movements, when you hit a lot of muscles hard, and one very hard.

next week 2 times per week, next week 2 times per week, train like this for a couple of weeks months, then go to 2 times per week, next week 1 time per week, next week 2 times per week, alternate like this for a couple of weeks months, then go to training 1 time per week.

And then now and again, say one time in four week, if you feel like training a bodypart 2 times per week, that should be ok

Then reduce your overall sets a bit if you like, but up the intensity, or you can specialise on a lagging bodypart, but any one whom has been training for six months, you will grow far better if you take at least a 10 to 14 day layoff.

There are lots of chose, here are just some to get you thinking.

Wayne

[Guinness5.0]

Wayne, I'm not going down the road of trying to explain thsi stuff to you. It's been done by people smarter than me. I don't like 'banging my head against the wall'.

First and foremost, HIT doesn't even use their terms properly. EVERYWHERE outside of HIT, the definition of intensity is THE PERCENTAGE OF ONE'S ONE-REP MAXIMUM. It is quantifiable and calculable. The HIT butchering of the word intensity is vague and subjective.

You guys think you exist on an island as 'enlightened" individuals, but you NEVER back your grandiose claims with a shred of proof.

BTW to the original poster, Kingfish and wayne were the two HIT nazis that came to mind when I posted. Search Kingfish's posts and read the outrageous claims he makes (he claims to have read 'every book ever written' on training) - it'll become abundantly clear that the guy is a looney tune. And wayne is the most persistent bastard I have ever seen - argues points he's clueless on and defends 'em til people get sick of typing retorts, then claims victory.

But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round

its the volume lifters that are ignorant

Evry program ever done involves volume. HIT involves volume. You are clueless. How many times do you need to be called out before you realize that you are a laughingstock on these boards? Why don't you tell the original poster about your stats? Aren't you 6'3, 350 pounds? And you can do 66 bodyweight dips? And sprints for hours without getting tired? Sorry bro, no one is dumb enough to believe that ****. Go away.

[slippy]

BBinStress,

Keep in mind that HIT has many different subsects. Mentzer only represents one side of it.

Wayne's links are a good place to start.

The Cyberpump site was where I learned HIT, but I'm not sure how much of the information is free anymore.

But the best place to start is the "HIT FAQ." Although its sensibilities are perhaps a little more dated than the current thought, it's still a solid, laymen overview of it.

If you're further interested in the subject, google for these keywords (in addition to the above links from Wayne)

Stuart McRoberts, Brawn
Hardgainer, Dinosaur, Kubik
IART, Brian Johnston
Pete Sisco and John Little
MedX, Hammer

And if you're interested in a program that has HIT flavor . . .

DC, Doggcrapp, Intensemuscle, Muscle Mayhem

[waynelucky]

Hi,

First and foremost, HIT doesn't even use their terms properly. EVERYWHERE outside of HIT, the definition of intensity is THE PERCENTAGE OF ONE'S ONE-REP MAXIMUM. It is quantifiable and calculable. The HIT butchering of the word intensity is vague and subjective.

I think the word "Intensity" is more inline with the way HIT writes it in it’s High “intensity” Training, it means we had a very hard workout, a “intense” workout, “intense” is far more inline with higher reps. When you achieved 450 x 20 reps in the squat, 410 x 20 DL, 380 x 20 BP, 180 x 20 BC, etc, and lifting like this is, power/strength which equals "intensity" at it's highest, that is my opinion.

Also High repetitions are a show of complete power/strength. A 700 squat might seem stronger, but from an absolute, all over power/strength point, I think high repetitions, are more about power/strength, and do more deserve the word, "intensity", far more than 1RM's.

In my opinion, higher reps build more hypertrophy and strength. High repetitions are an "intense" workout, and a higher level of pain, physically and mentally, meaning I had an "intense" workout.

After using this program to the extreme and achieving (what I felt) were unbelievable results, I have no emotional attachment to low rep loads.

Again I can only point out 405 x 18 reps in the squat, over 30 reps with 300# in the pulldown, 10 reps with 235 in the standing curl, 20 reps with 265 in the Close grip Bench press......

These are a display of POWER beyond what I ever believed possible. A 560# squat might look stronger, but from a "pure power" aspect it pales in comparison.

Which one builds more strength? Which one causes more hypertrophy? I think when you run out of gains, DIRECT COMPENSATION will surprise the hell out of you, as long as you can get past the mental barriers of using so much weight for so many reps and the pain involved.

And wayne is the most persistent bastard I have ever seen - argues points he's clueless on and defends 'em til people get sick of typing retorts, then claims victory.

Wow you’re right there, I am persistent, (I claim the most persistent person in the world, cool, hehehe) however I am “not” clueless, and “only” report victory, when the facts go my way, I said, ask me a HIT question, and not do you want an argument.

Guinness5.0, you’re a great guy, I have read some of your pots there good, however it when people like you come into a HIT thread and start us off, I don’t really want to argue with anyone, but if we don’t and all agree, we will never learn anything.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Hi Slippy,

Thx for the links, damn how could I forget IART, Brian Johnston http://www.iartonline.ca/ and http://www.cyberpump.com/

Wayne

[B.b. in stress!]

thx for all the replies guys, but im still a little confused.

r u saying that u should do all of those training methods (statics, slow negatives, etc.) incorporated within a workout? i dont understand all these things that r given. so should an outline of the HIT look like this:

1 set per day
workout 2x a week
go to failure
6-10 rep range
use many techniques
...?

need more help sorry

[Big Bamboo]

BBinStress,

Keep in mind that HIT has many different subsects. Mentzer only represents one side of it.

Wayne's links are a good place to start.

The Cyberpump site was where I learned HIT, but I'm not sure how much of the information is free anymore.

But the best place to start is the "HIT FAQ." Although its sensibilities are perhaps a little more dated than the current thought, it's still a solid, laymen overview of it.

If you're further interested in the subject, google for these keywords (in addition to the above links from Wayne)

Stuart McRoberts, Brawn
Hardgainer, Dinosaur, Kubik
IART, Brian Johnston
Pete Sisco and John Little
MedX, Hammer

And if you're interested in a program that has HIT flavor . . .

DC, Doggcrapp, Intensemuscle, Muscle Mayhem

I agree, people seem to think Mentzer=HIT, but he's only one guy with a particular slant to it.

Cyberpump is the best HIT site, but it isn't free anymore. I think it's $10/yr or something like that. But the info is *awesome*.

The HIT FAQ is pretty much the "bible" of HIT. Not free anymore either, but it was well worth the $20. It's on hardtraining.com

Stu McRobert's books rock too. Check out hardgainer.com

Oh yeah, and if you haven't noticed already, there are a few people on this board who *despise* HIT, with a jihadist fevor. On the other side are the Mentzer zealots. So you'll hear a lot of insanity.

The reality is that HIT is a great approach that works for a lot of people. There are other things that work very well too. Find what works best for you.

[Big Bamboo]

thx for all the replies guys, but im still a little confused.

r u saying that u should do all of those training methods (statics, slow negatives, etc.) incorporated within a workout? i dont understand all these things that r given. so should an outline of the HIT look like this:

1 set per day
workout 2x a week
go to failure
6-10 rep range
use many techniques
...?

need more help sorry

No. Here's one sample HIT routine, from the HIT FAQ. I'll assume you've lifted weights for awhile, so the intermediate routine is for you.

1. Squat/Leg press or Deadlifts

2. Regular Chin-up

3. Overhead Press

4. Row

5. Bench Press

6. Biceps Curl

7. Triceps Extension

8. Lying l-flye

9. Abdominal Crunches

You do this routine 2x/week, one set of each exercise, whatever rep range you like best, to failure or close to it (on squats or deadlifts "failure" means the last rep you can do in good form, you don't attempt a rep you know your form will break)

Rep speed is *controlled*. Forget about negatives, forced reps, etc.

That's it. Nothing fancy. You work hard on a few basic movements done infrequently. Simple, but very effective.

[kingfish3]

simple stuff. If you can incline 185 for 5 reps. The next workout you need to do 185 for at least 6 reps or preferably go up in weight until you can no longer than change the exercise, grip, rep speed, do static holds, negatives to continue to see results. Do the exact amount of warmup sets and then one set to failure with the heaviest weight you can use in good form.

[Guinness5.0]

Oh yeah, and if you haven't noticed already, there are a few people on this board who *despise* HIT, with a jihadist fevor. On the other side are the Mentzer zealots. So you'll hear a lot of insanity.

In case this is in reference to me, I want to be clear that I'm not anti-HIT per se. I freely admit that I don't think very highly of it as a long term approach - I think that the need for low frequency in advanced users is a consequence of hitting failure constantly and is far from optimal for this very reason. My main beef is with the cultish following it seems to garner. If you can get over the harshness of my posts above, you'll see that I'm more anti-HITer than anti-HIT

In a nutshell, I feel that a good program properly regulates volume, intensity (% of 1rm), frequency and workload. It does not focus on one aspect permanently to the exclusion of the other factors.

I think the word "Intensity" is more inline with the way HIT writes it in it’s High “intensity” Training, it means we had a very hard workout, a “intense” workout, “intense” is far more inline with higher reps. When you achieved 450 x 20 reps in the squat, 410 x 20 DL, 380 x 20 BP, 180 x 20 BC, etc, and lifting like this is, power/strength which equals "intensity" at it's highest, that is my opinion.

Look, you can't change the definitions of words in common usage to suit your tastes. There has to be congruity in our terminology or else discussion of this stuff is a complete waste of time.

Intensity in a weightlifting setting means the percentage of one's one rep maximum they are using. It DOES NOT MATTER what rep range is used - the poundage used is STILL a percentage of that lifter's one rep max. A low % of that 1rm is considered a low intensity. So, to use your example, someone who deadlifts 410 for 20 reps is STILL using a low (or perhaps medium depending on the individual's 1rm) intensity b/c in relation to their one rep max, the poundage is low.

[slippy]

Look, you can't change the definitions of words in common usage to suit your tastes. There has to be congruity in our terminology or else discussion of this stuff is a complete waste of time.

But, see, that's the point. In HIT, intensity has a completely different definition than in non-HIT. You can cite that 80% of the weightlifting world uses one definition, but that isn't relevant to the 20% who don't.

What's important is that the connotation of intensity is properly translated when crossing different contexts or systems.

It's like me using the word "pimp." Means different things between my car and my "employees."

[Guinness5.0]

What's important is that the connotation of intensity is properly translated when crossing different contexts or systems.

True. I am guilty of taking a very strong stance againt that which differs from my sphere of influence.

Is there a solution to this difference in terminolgy? It's like trying to get the Palestinians and Israelis to decide who gets to keep the Gaza strip area

[Vinny_Au]

Kingfish how are volume lifters ignorant ? When you are the one who detests and despises anyone following a volume routine. All your posts are satire, they are fun to read, until one realises they are compeletly flawed, and even more hilarious to laugh at. Your view of hit is subjective, there are no references in your posts, only fable of what Mentzer use to say. HIT alike in training methodology is just another set of principles, guidelines if you put, to train with. THERE IS NO BEST SYSTSEM!

I myself digest hit like any other training methodology, i may dislike it, i may even prefer another training methodology but i will never log onto forums for the sake of proving why one training method is better then other.

[slippy]

Speaking of Sphere of Influence, you can probably analyze HIT culture from a Foucault-ian "History of Hardgainerality" survey. Essentially, much of the "Apple vs. Microsoft" rhetoric is a survey of overtraining as pathological phenomena. If you're not afflicted, you either had good genetics or followed HIT. If you were afflicted, HIT had a catalogue the reasons and could type you against whatever overtraining behaviour you enacted and its culture. You were this or that kind of overtrainer; you belonged to this or that group which preached this or that. That is why there's so much fighting between HITers and NCSA coaches, SSEG and mainstream aerobics, HIT vs. traditional periodization. We go beyond idea and into idealogy, a war of culture.

Within the community itself, the rhetoric to a degree still balkanizes the adherents into different tribes, and (like psychology) you then have seen different schools of adaptation/overtraining. Often the disagreement is bitter too, because they have different assessments of the nature of the pathology and how it should be "treated." And they all claim a lineage to the Godfather himself, Arthur Jones.

FWIW, I actually wished we had a similar level of (public) dissension within trad. periodization. The above internal fighting (much thanks to the Net) has helped move HIT forward in the last 5-7 years more than it has in the previous 20.

But it's important when somebody is trying to learn HIT that there are these different schools. Within HIT, I think IART has done the best job at approaching and understanding the HIT-percieved problem of overtraining, applying the Supercompensation model more completely than anybody before them.

Is there a solution to this difference in terminolgy?

Playoffs, man. It's the 5x5 All Pros vs. the "one and done" Kingfishes. Winner takes home "Intensity" bragging rights; loser has to plug Cell-tech!

FWIW, I think it just comes down to avoiding the word "intensity" altogether. HIT's notion of intensity translates pretty well to Maximum Voluntary Contraction (MVC.) And HIT recognizes %1RM when discussing the role of rep ranges.

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Hi Guinness5.0,

I think the word "Intensity" is more inline with the way HIT writes it in it’s High “intensity” Training, it means we had a very hard workout, a “intense” workout, “intense” is far more inline with higher reps. When you achieved 450 x 20 reps in the squat, 410 x 20 DL, 380 x 20 BP, 180 x 20 BC, etc, and lifting like this is, power/strength which equals "intensity" at it's highest, that is my opinion.

[quote=Guinness5.0]Look, you can't change the definitions of words in common usage to suit your tastes. There has to be congruity in our terminology or else discussion of this stuff is a complete waste of time.

Intensity in a weightlifting setting means the percentage of one's one rep maximum they are using. It DOES NOT MATTER what rep range is used - the poundage used is STILL a percentage of that lifter's one rep max. A low % of that 1rm is considered a low intensity. So, to use your example, someone who deadlifts 410 for 20 reps is STILL using a low (or perhaps medium depending on the individual's 1rm) intensity b/c in relation to their one rep max, the poundage is low.[quote]

Yes I see where you’re coming from with your way of defining intensity, and I agree, however in the HIT camp, intensity means, a HIT workout is an intense workout, or a very hard workout. That’s why it’s called, High “Intensity” Training, as the training is intense, hard or brutal.

Not sure you interested in the below, but there is a similar debate going on, in another forum.

John Casler writes:
I think your explanation is clear and concise. However the assertion (of
the system - not yours) is not truly accurate to intensity to an activity.

Intensity can only be assessed to the specific activity, due to the
duration, distance and load of that activity. These elements collectively
create a "magnitude or density" of output.

The only sure measure of 100% intensity to an activity is a 100% measure of
a Rep Maximum or maximum volitional effort. Obviously this means "any" rep
maximum or maximum effort will yield 100% intensity for all intents and
purposes.

Suggesting that a 100% effort is less than 100% intensity would seem less
than accurate.

If we wish to be more accurate, even a single rep maximum can have an
increase in intensity with an increase in load, distance or decrease in
duration with the same load and distance.

So to follow the current system's creative logic further, the 1RM would need
be the "instantaneous peak output" at some point during a 1RM to truly be
accurate.

One could argue that a single rep maximum, might be closer to a 2 rep
maximum, but the 2nd rep is not completed. This would lead us to believe
that using a load that would "allow" the completion of the 2nd rep, would
yield a "higher intensity" than a single Rep Maximum effort, simply because
of the ability to express a greater magnitude and density of effort.

The current adaptation and schematic would seem to exclude all other
activities from being assessed under its definition. My example of a 100m
and 200m sprint might serve. If we agree that one's best time in the 100m
and 200m sprint is 100% intensity to that activity then which activity is
more intense. 100m? or 200m? Using the currently accepted schematic, all
would be based on a SINGLE STEP MAXIMUM.

Imagine telling a World Class Sprinter, that his 100m PR was not 100%
intensity, but only a small percentage effort, which it would be if we
translated the current system to sprinting.

The current system is simply a "display and measure" of strength and the %
of strength used. So the 97%, or whatever, is a % of the "Strength 1RM",
not intensity.

Martin Gallyer wrote:

> To quote Mr Casler "My assertions are based on recognizing that all
> actions and activities, have
> their "own" possible intensity levels.", this is the same as I would say,
> very well put. Below are some activities/ exercises:
> Back squat is an exercise
> Front squat is an exercise
> Biceps curl is an exercise
> Calf raise is an exercise
> Bench press is an exercise
> Deadlift is an exercise
>
> 7RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 7 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 6RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 6 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 5RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 5 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 4RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 4 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 3RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 3 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 2RM is not an exercise/activity it is the same activity done 2 times, but
> requires 100% effort, but is not as intense as a maximal lift
> 1RM is also not an exercise/activity it is an activity done once, but
> requires 100% effort, this is a maximal lift (100% intensity).

John Casler writes:

The fallacy of all the above examples is the phrase "requires 100% effort,
but is not as intense as a maximal lift". This displays an inaccurate use
of the terminology.

100% effort to an activity/exercise/action, IS the greatest magnitude or
density of effort (100%) to that activity and IS 100% intensity by any
accurate application of the definition.

Is the example of the 100m sprint not an activity? How would you measure
the "intensity" of a 100m Sprint? (with a SSM -Single Stride Maximum, as I
suggested above?)

And the above argument of a single rep still remains that each and every
degree of that ONE REP, can have a measured "intensity". If it cannot, then
a static/isometric action cannot have intensity, and of course we know it
can.

Martin Gallyer wrote:

> Another example: Power output on a Wingate cycle task (All out cycling
> exercise for 30 sec)............
> From this test you can get a peak power output (max), and mean (average)
> power, you can get others but lets just stick to the basics. The peak
> power on this exercise (cycling) would = individuals max or 100%, lets say
> it is 1500W (Watts). Mean (average) power would be the average over the
> test, lets say it is 1000W. Average intensity of even such a short task
> like this would be 66.66% of individuals max intensity. If you have ever
> done this exercise you will know it requires a lot of effort but you are
> unable to maintain the intensity for the test duration. And yes the fact
> you have reached peak power means it is a maximal intensity test, you have
> found your maximum (just like 1RM). If we were now to exercise at 1000W on
> the same cycle ergo for as long as possible this would be an endurance
> test at an exercise intensity of 66.66% (something like 14RM in terms of
> strength), this requires the same max effort but the intensity is lower
> (in comparison to the individuals max).

John Casler writes:

Seems the confusion arises because of the insistence to try and assign peak
strength as 100% intensity, when it is not. Peak Output is only maximum
intensity for the duration of that output. There is nothing in the
definition of "intensity" that designates a "time qualifier", so that is
open, and we can speak of instantaneous intensity, or intensity for a
specific duration or distance.

We can measure the intensity of "any" duration, of an activity. Simply
doing that and "assigning" that duration the designation of 100% is creating
a limiting map to any activity not within that map. This makes the schedule
less accurate.

Again, I can only say that even during Single Rep Maximum, the Peak Output,
against the bar or load is not the same throughout the complete action, so
we could analyze a single 2 second rep and dissect it as easily as your 30
second Wingate Test.

Let me state, that while I feel the system is inaccurate as far as
designations, that does not change the "effectiveness" of its
implementations. It only affects its accuracy in relation to the
terminology and how it relates to "other" activities that might need to be
understood as far as to their intensity.

Peak Power and Maximum Intensity are "NOT" always the same thing. They are
only the same thing when the analysis is "time/distance" limited. Magnitude
and Density of output "can" be measured or observed over time and distance,
and that is the true definition of intensity to an activity. Even a 1RM has
these elements.


Part two to come.

Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there all,

Part two,

Martin Gallyer wrote:

> I really have tried to make this as simple as possible, please take the
> time to understand what I have written

John Casler writes:

Thanks Martin, you have stated the current system quite well.

Regards,

to move forward without the
limitations of 1RM or the more ridiculous SSM (Single Stride Maximum) which
I made up simply to illustrate the "limitations" it places on our field.

But stating that "only" a single rep is the "only" measure of 100% intensity
is exceptionally centric and adds confusion when trying to establish the
"intensity level" of any of a number of other activities that can and are
either less or more intense.

1/2 speed, 1/2 load, 1/2 distance are all concise explanations of measure.
1/2 intensity has no such measure in a multi-element
(load/duration/distance) effort.

There are many terms in weightlifting and weight training that are used
incorrectly. I had many discussions with Mel about the term "resistance"
and how I contend that it is only accurate during the lifting phase of
weight training, (when the external load resists our effort) since a weight
load does not act as an outside resistance during the lowering or eccentric
phase.

I don't expect this terminology to change, on my suggestion, but when I
study an area that is made cloudy, by questionable application of terms that
were adapted via a less than comprehensive overview, I offer the information
to offer insight (as I see it)

Martin Gallyer wrote:

Effort is not the same as intensity. No matter how hard you try (how much
effort you put in) you will not be able to sustain 100% intensity for a long
period of time using the current definitions. How can you expect to
communicate with people if everything is 100% intensity.

John Casler writes:

Maximum volitional effort, should yield 100% intensity to an activity, no
matter how long the effort lasts.

It is obvious that the creators and followers of the system are under the
impression that 100% intensity is momentary. There is NO specific time
designation of that type in any scientific definition of intensity. This
assignment of time limited usage is entirely based on a "peak strength
centric" application.

I think what might be confusing is that intensity is not a "fixed" number.
That is why it is difficult to measure. Maybe this is the problem.

The training element of "intensity" is useful in relation to itself. That
is, 1RM can only be compared in intensity "only" to other 1RM efforts.
20RM's can only be compared to 20RM's and so on.

If I increase my 20RM "that" load (time/distance) then becomes 100%
intensity to that rep range, and activity.

That is, it is only accurate for the time and distance performance of the
activity. As I pointed out, even in your example of a single rep maximum,
you have "variances" of intensity within that single rep, and they take
place over distance and duration.

If you want confusion, perform a 20RM in any exercise (be sure it is a RM
and not simply a 20 rep set) and compute the intensity according to your
formula. Then tell me your effort was less than 100% intensity to the
activity.

It would seem that we fail to recognize that there are such things in our
peak strength-centric application.

Martin Gallyer wrote:

And yes you could get a single stride maximum for running with these
definitions. In a race like 10m vs. 100m, you might get a lean powerlifter
beating a sprinter over 10m simply because of their power to body mass
ratios, even 100m requires some level (very small amount) of pacing to avoid
burning out before the line (100% power not sustainable for a 100m race).

John Casler writes:

According to your presentation of the present system, 100% power is not
sustainable for anything except a SSM (Single Stride Maximum)

So you must say that 100% intensity can only be for that SSM.

This would then make even a 10m sprint a pitiful 10% intensity effort or
less. How many strides in a 10m sprint? 20 or 30? so we would have a 20SM
(20 Stride Maximum) with a Single Stride Maximum being 100%, what %
intensity would that make a 20SM, 10 meter sprint? After all a sprint is a
"set" of SSM's.

Martin Gallyer wrote:

The current system works very well, and is very understandable when you get
to grips with it. However if you wish to go about redefining the whole
meaning of intensity into something everyone can use then good luck to you.
It will take plenty of time but then people will be using 'Casler's (2006)'
definition to define intensity in coming years.

John Casler writes:

If you answered my question about the 20SM above you might see that it
doesn't work well for all efforts.

And if you have dictionary, I, am not the one who is redefining the meaning
of intensity. My suggestion follows the definition.

As I stated, I have no problem with the simplicity of the system of
percentages of 1RM strength and their application. The terminology is
simply a grandfathered term from an era that didn't consider what it really
meant.

And again my suggestion offers expanded clarity, and does not require
"changing" anything that affects the results of the program or its use.

It simply "frees" the system from being termed inaccurately, as well as the
"perception" of what intensity really is.

Regards,

Wayne