Putting Mike Mentzers HIT to the test

[FarEastBeast]

I really don't think he's trying to "convince" anyone, just writing his experiences. You have to read the whole thread to understand the stength gains he's reporting in their proper context. If you're relatively untrained in a certain lift, or dramatically change the way you're doing something, it's not so crazy to see such gains.

[Awnold79]

drush who are you trying to convince? The sort of gains you are talking about in the last two months, for an intermediate or hell any level of bodybuilder, even on drugs, are IMPOSSIBLE. You have allegedly gained 50% or thereabouts on the major strength lifts in basically no time at all. If any of this is as you are presenting it, i expect to see you at the powerlifting world champs in the summer and as a special invitee to the Olympia in October where you will surely tear big country a new *******.
I get the feeling I am a lone sceptic in a world of gullible HIT devotees who have delved this far into this thread. post some pictures of either your physique or the lifts you are claiming, I'm calling a bunch of bull on this one.

It's not bull. I've experienced the same types of gains using this program.

[DRush]

drush who are you trying to convince? The sort of gains you are talking about in the last two months, for an intermediate or hell any level of bodybuilder, even on drugs, are IMPOSSIBLE. You have allegedly gained 50% or thereabouts on the major strength lifts in basically no time at all. If any of this is as you are presenting it, i expect to see you at the powerlifting world champs in the summer and as a special invitee to the Olympia in October where you will surely tear big country a new *******.
I get the feeling I am a lone sceptic in a world of gullible HIT devotees who have delved this far into this thread. post some pictures of either your physique or the lifts you are claiming, I'm calling a bunch of bull on this one.

Its as simple as this, Ill gain while you debate.

Anyway there is no way you could have read the whole thread to understand the whole picture. Its there in black and white I explained why Ive went up so much in the deadlift and squat, because I really never did them religiously.I seriously doubt I will be at any powerlifting meet anytime soon with my numbers.You think 345 in the squat is Olympic #s?Or 325 in the deadlift? You are way off base there. My numbers pale in comparasion to alot of others here, dont you agree? Ive posted everything I ever did from day one, even the mistakes and the times I went down in weight, so Im not hiding anything. I appreciate the posters here who back me, but you,read the thread before you comment its all there.

[Madcow2]

drush who are you trying to convince? The sort of gains you are talking about in the last two months, for an intermediate or hell any level of bodybuilder, even on drugs, are IMPOSSIBLE. You have allegedly gained 50% or thereabouts on the major strength lifts in basically no time at all. If any of this is as you are presenting it, i expect to see you at the powerlifting world champs in the summer and as a special invitee to the Olympia in October where you will surely tear big country a new *******.
I get the feeling I am a lone sceptic in a world of gullible HIT devotees who have delved this far into this thread. post some pictures of either your physique or the lifts you are claiming, I'm calling a bunch of bull on this one.

Actually, if you read back even a couple pages he covers a lot of this in depth regarding the increases in his lifts.

[billythefish2]

the first page and the last page. I'm not going to go through 26 pages of this nonsense. But what have i misunderstood? You have put a hundred pounds on your incline press with moderate reps whilst also accentuating the negative with the improved poundage? So what if you had never trained the lift before. 300 for 12 on the incline, with slow negatives, would put you in the mid 400's for a flat bench max single;- without a bench shirt, and at 220 bodyweight. Don't worry if your squat is not that good the point i was fascetiously making about the world championships was that at this rate of increase you will be elite by the spring in all your lifts.
if HIT really worked, and this is the point so many people keep coming back to on this board, how come there are NO 'serious' (i.e. moderately well known) athletes in ANY strength sport who uses it? That long bit on Dorian Yates, can't remember if it was on this thread, was quite interesting but bore little relation to the workout he does in his video beyond the low number of sets. It also does not relate to any of numerous articles I have read by him. If he did that workout it wasn't for very much of his career.

[kingfish3]

many many serious athletes train using hit. Some have already been named. Half my clients lift for usa powerlifting twice a year

[billythefish2]

Who?

[Khryz]

many many serious athletes train using hit. Some have already been named. Half my clients lift for usa powerlifting twice a year

Anything you say kid.

[9cyclops9]

Who?

Yeah, let's have some names and proof, Your Aquatic Majesty. Your credibility is in the negatives on this site.

[DRush]

the first page and the last page. I'm not going to go through 26 pages of this nonsense. But what have i misunderstood? You have put a hundred pounds on your incline press with moderate reps whilst also accentuating the negative with the improved poundage? So what if you had never trained the lift before. 300 for 12 on the incline, with slow negatives, would put you in the mid 400's for a flat bench max single;- without a bench shirt, and at 220 bodyweight. Don't worry if your squat is not that good the point i was fascetiously making about the world championships was that at this rate of increase you will be elite by the spring in all your lifts.
if HIT really worked, and this is the point so many people keep coming back to on this board, how come there are NO 'serious' (i.e. moderately well known) athletes in ANY strength sport who uses it? That long bit on Dorian Yates, can't remember if it was on this thread, was quite interesting but bore little relation to the workout he does in his video beyond the low number of sets. It also does not relate to any of numerous articles I have read by him. If he did that workout it wasn't for very much of his career.

If you want to quote numbers at least get them right.My last update involving bench on 12/1 was posted that I did 295 for 8 reps where did you get your numbers? And if you plug these numbers into a one reps max calculater, although not 100%, will give you a max one rep max of 366 again way off from the "mid 400's " you quoted. I have nothing to hide. All my progress and my mistakes and reductions in weights and everything I have changed is there for you to read.Another reason you should have read the thread is the fact of the "hit doesnt work" you are spewing has already been beaten to death over and over. My numbers are not in the least "spectacular" not even close.Im strong I have good size, but not close to some of the vets here. And Ill admit it that I dont know everything either. Thats why I welcome help from people such as Madcow who recommended good reading that made a measurable difference in 2 of my core excercises. I went into this thing not expecting much of anything I didnt know if it would even work hence the title "Putting Mike Mentzers HIT to the test". I will ride this out as long as it works. If you dont believe fine.But at least read the thread if you want to comment on it correctly, not just speculations and guesses. But anyway on another note your posts weather good or bad help keep my thread bumped to the top,Thanks

[DRush]

Did the workout # 3 which is shoulders+ arms Today

Workout #3
Shoulders
1: Dumbell lateral raises
Last week I did 30lbs for 9 this week 30lbs for 9.Then grabbed the 35lbs and did a static hold and a controlled negative twice,I have not gone up at all in this excercise but I felt a little stronger than last time doing the reps and neg.I cannot really go up to the 35s (which is how the weights jump) because it is to much of a jump. I may use the cables next time to correct this

2:Behind the Neck Press
Last week did 185lbs for 6(behind the neck) , this week 185 for 8(in front of the neck) .I went down last time i did this excercise and I said I would change it so I did. The numbers posted above for this week are for shoulder presses in front of the neck which I will be doing from now on.I feel awkward doing behind the neck, it seems to put my arms at a uncomfortable angle.


Biceps

4:Palms up pulldowns
Last week I did 205lbs for 8.This week I did 210 for 9
then put on 225 for 1 15 sec neg, then 240 and did a satic hold in the contracted position and a 15 second negative .I am still going up on this excercies since day one. My arms have increased in size since last week or so. I guess strength comes before size in my case.
Triceps

5:Tricep pressdowns
This week I did 190lbs for 10 reps,last week I did the 200 for 9. I am feeling very strong in the arms department,shoulder are another thing though. I imeadiatly put on 210 which rackes the machine, and did one or 2 reps then held it at contraction then went with a 15 sec neg twice. This is back to back after the 9 reps at 200

6: Dips
Lat time I did a 45lb+10lbs for 10 reps,This week a 45 and a 25lb plate for 10 reps. I immediatly put on 2 45s and did 4 reps, my arms were very wobbly. I did not want to do the negatives on the dip area with the free weights so I went on the seated tricep pushdown and did 325 for controlled negatives.

All in all I am happy. Seems shoulder work is my crux though.Any opinions or help in this area would be appreciated.Thanks all for reading

[Khryz]

2:Behind the Neck Press
Last week did 185lbs for 6(behind the neck) , this week 185 for 8(in front of the neck) .I went down last time i did this excercise and I said I would change it so I did. The numbers posted above for this week are for shoulder presses in front of the neck which I will be doing from now on.I feel awkward doing behind the neck, it seems to put my arms at a uncomfortable angle.

Don't do behind the neck presses unless you want to increase the chance of injury to your shoulders ten-fold. That's the reason why you feel awkward doing it. IMO it's just like Upright Rows; dangerous.

[ozzyfan]

Don't do behind the neck presses unless you want to increase the chance of injury to your shoulders ten-fold. .

Then explain why just about all o-lifters do them without injury! It's all a matter of flexibility. Stop spreading misinformation.Please.

[kingfish3]

i highly recommend to stop doing behind the neck presses. Ive seen some major injuries from this exercise. Not to mention wrecked shoulders. I would never have a client do them ever.

[skinnyme]

I would have to agree. I too have seen many people end up with shoulder problems because of this. I used to do this because a few hardliners said this was the best thing, and I felt really uncomfortable with it. Lifting is hard work, but it just didn't feel right - like I was damaging something or pulling it the wrong way. It didn't take to long to start having trouble with my shoulders, especially my left one. Now they pop when I bench. It doesn't feel very good.

[kingfish3]

wow 3 that agree with me on something. Its a christmas miracle

[skinnyme]

merry christmas kingfish! And a happy new year while we're at it!

[Khryz]

I would have to agree. I too have seen many people end up with shoulder problems because of this. I used to do this because a few hardliners said this was the best thing, and I felt really uncomfortable with it. Lifting is hard work, but it just didn't feel right - like I was damaging something or pulling it the wrong way. It didn't take to long to start having trouble with my shoulders, especially my left one. Now they pop when I bench. It doesn't feel very good.

Your shoulders pop when you bench because of the weakened rotator cuffs I believe, a primary injury site for behind the neck presses. So Ozzyfan, please - stop spreading misinformation that will injury the majority of the population.

[skinnyme]

One thing that has started to help correct this is external rotation - very slowly. I'll hook a thumb in a plate and shoot for about 5-7 reps at the end of every shoulder set. Any slight indication of pain or too much strain I drop 5 lbs and keep going until I reach the 5th set. It has really helped reduce the pop. I also noticed less when I started doing one-arm dumbbell bench presses - plus the really hit the pecs and stabilizer muscles.

[FarEastBeast]

If you want to quote numbers at least get them right.My last update involving bench on 12/1 was posted that I did 295 for 8 reps where did you get your numbers? And if you plug these numbers into a one reps max calculater, although not 100%, will give you a max one rep max of 366 again way off from the "mid 400's " you quoted. I have nothing to hide. All my progress and my mistakes and reductions in weights and everything I have changed is there for you to read.Another reason you should have read the thread is the fact of the "hit doesnt work" you are spewing has already been beaten to death over and over. My numbers are not in the least "spectacular" not even close.Im strong I have good size, but not close to some of the vets here. And Ill admit it that I dont know everything either. Thats why I welcome help from people such as Madcow who recommended good reading that made a measurable difference in 2 of my core excercises. I went into this thing not expecting much of anything I didnt know if it would even work hence the title "Putting Mike Mentzers HIT to the test". I will ride this out as long as it works. If you dont believe fine.But at least read the thread if you want to comment on it correctly, not just speculations and guesses. But anyway on another note your posts weather good or bad help keep my thread bumped to the top,Thanks

"Beaten to death" is a good way of putting it. DRush here is taking time and effort to post his actual results using HIT, which IMO beats rehashing the same old debate and getting nowhere. I think even HIT Haters should respect that. I further think all comments should be constructive (even if negative) and relevant to the thread. Most important, we should take the posts in good faith. If you have a specific doubt, fine, post it, but to characterize the whole thread as bs is insulting and disrespetful. Just the .02 of someone who appreciates the thread.

[DRush]

"Beaten to death" is a good way of putting it. DRush here is taking time and effort to post his actual results using HIT, which IMO beats rehashing the same old debate and getting nowhere. I think even HIT Haters should respect that. I further think all comments should be constructive (even if negative) and relevant to the thread. Most important, we should take the posts in good faith. If you have a specific doubt, fine, post it, but to characterize the whole thread as bs is insulting and disrespetful. Just the .02 of someone who appreciates the thread.

Thanks for your comments FarEastBeast. I really am showing everything I am doing, weather I am gaining or not. just take a look at my last few posts regarding workout number 3 which is shoulders and arms. I have not gained on the shoulder press and actually changed the excercise all together. This is about as honest a posting of a hit "style" workout as anyone will read. I dont even consider this a full hit style workout. I incorperate on my own negative which the routine doesnt call for. Sometimes I actually do another set it depends on how I feel. Their have been times Ive done say 180 on the pulll downs and got 8 and felt i could have did more, and would bang out another set of 8 or 9 at 190 because i felt I didnt give it my all or my form to me was not acceptable. I know one thing is for sure, and i would appreciate the veteran imput on this. Is the fact ever since I have been incorperating the 3 basic core lifts (deadlift,bench and squat) religiously into my routines when I look in the mirror I can almost tell my body looks "thicker" all around. I have read this else where as well.I really enjoy the good comments and kind remarks of my progress. Thanks all for reading.

[all pro]

wow 3 that agree with me on something. Its a christmas miracle

I'm gonna make it 4. D PLEASE stop doing them before you hurt yourself, you can replace them with a regular shoulder press

[all pro]

I know one thing is for sure, and i would appreciate the veteran imput on this. Is the fact ever since I have been incorperating the 3 basic core lifts (deadlift,bench and squat) religiously into my routines when I look in the mirror I can almost tell my body looks "thicker" all around. I have read this else where as well.I really enjoy the good comments and kind remarks of my progress. Thanks all for reading.

For what it's worth these three especially squats cause a boost in test production, thats why the 20 rep squat program is so effective, if you can survive it.

[slippy]

For what it's worth these three especially squats cause a boost in test production, thats why the 20 rep squat program is so effective, if you can survive it.

There' some truth to that, in the sense that the more muscle you actually work, the higher your test and GH levels will temporarily be. But it would also follow that full-body routines would generate higher test levels than micro-splits per workout session. In the real world, it's not going to make much of a difference.

That being said, methods like 20-rep squats work great because . . .

A) they make you do squats with enough volume and at a sufficiently heavy weight to generate microtrauma. And, of course, that's the beginning of building muscle.

B) they make you perform the reps at a high enough density to create a severe energy demand at the moment. That in turn makes those affected muscles really, really good at sucking up nutrients for building muscle as well as replenishing energy.

C) plus, it's actually good for preventing future injuries

[slippy]

About HIT itself . . .
If you're a fan of football, it actually helps to look at bodybuilding as a 60-minute game. Progressive strength training for building muscle becomes a game of gaining as many yards as possible within that time frame. Variables become such --

1) Rate of muscle gaining "ability" is the equivalent of the raw speed of your offensive players.

2) Your relative training level is the reflection of the raw speed of the opposing team.

3) Your ability to rebound from CNS training stress and improve skill acquisition is the equivalent of how good your offensive line is.

4) Frequency is the equivalent to completion percentage.

HIT/HG, because they emphasize failure training and a fairly linear progression scheme, are basically vertical offenses. They're about generating a lot of yards per play to the possible detriment of completion percentage.
In the Mentzer/Little school of HIT, they emphasize long post routes with a very low completion rate (very low frequency.) It's maybe the most vertical offense there is. As long as you can continue to generate not only yards per play (strength gains), but very significant yards per play, you'll see good results. Having a good offensive line (i.e. good neural recovery rate) helps a lot. Again, you have to accept that you get less chances to stimulate gains, and so you have to make it up by pushing forward significantly every time. Your line (your recovery rate) needs to be healthy and well-rested.
In the Mentzer school of thought, basically, the reason why your completion rate goes down is because the defensive teams get faster and faster at higher levels (reaching the "genetic limit.) Your offensive line can only get so much better; your team speed doesn't really improve. Thus, in an extreme situation, you may, by Mentzerian necessity, find yourself only training a body part once every 3-4 weeks, the equivalent of basically throwing 4 or 5 hail marys per entire game to score all of your points (muscle.)

High risk / high reward. The key to success in Mentzerian HIT is to throw longer and longer pass routes, to keep challenging yourself with risky increases in training load. And to accept the long periods of inactivity, readying yourself for the next opportunity to go long. It happens to be when you've fallen behind by a lot of points (i.e. long layoff), or when the opposing defenses aren't fast (i.e. beginner level), the significant advantages in your offensive line (well rested CNS) and team speed (muscular development) can enable you to be extremely successful with this scheme.

Most of the HIT/HG schemes are not this extreme.

1) The McRoberts cycling wrinkle is the equivalent of balancing shorter (but still long) slant routes with a regular, if predictable, running game (i.e. lesser load, non-failure training.) This scheme is optimal when the balance of run and pass eases the demands on the offensive line and enables a high completion rate (i.e. 2x week of steady strength progression.)

2) Max-OT is the equivalent of the hurry-up, no huddle offense. You throw long routes to your fastest guys (i.e. choose exercises of highest dividends and work in a powerlifter's load range) in the hope that the defense will not be able to adjust until you've already accumulated a lot of yards. You accept that there will be lengthy droughts (i.e. the layoff period), just as long as there will be periods where you can catch the other team off guard and assault with a lot of deep throws.

3) Darden/Jones programs presume that your completion percentage will be very high, and give you a lengthy, lengthy playbook with many passing patterns and misdirection plays. However, you still never run the ball. Their preference of machines is the equivalent of your offense running indoors and on artificial turf. Although not required, this leverages a significant advantage with your overall team speed over the defense. That is, it can take longer to plateau. The hope is that, with all of the possible high-risk choices at your disposal, you can find something that you can complete at a high percentage. It's arguably the most demanding of all.

4) IART-influenced HIT schemes, arguably the most advanced of the lot, takes Mentzerian HIT to the next level. The offense can be very, very vertical, but they also include the equivalent of play scripts (Chaos training) and the exact measurement/timing of routes (TUT) to maximize the efficiency and yard potential of each slant, post, and tight end play. Basically, they're to HIT what the Don Coryell/Mike Martz system is to vertical offenses. They're also, arguably, the only HIT variation that examines the issue of ball possession time (i.e. the amount of time per year where the body is actually growing.)

5) Finally, there's DC training. DC isn't HIT/HG per se, but a lot of HIT-ish elements end up in there. I'm not sure how to describe in football terms, except that it's probably the closest thing to USC Football. Everybody discovers their inner Reggie Bush with this system.

As most football people know, most NFL teams don't use vertical schemes. And, while yards per play is important, their principal means of scoring a lot of points is securing ball control and ball posession time. That, regardless of the speed of the opposing defense, the key is to run and execute the right play in order to eventually move forward and keep the offense on the field.
That is where periodization schemes come in. They are the equivalent of the West Coast Offense, a game of read-and-react, give-and-take, and experience, in order to push the line forward regularly and with a predictable level of control.

They look at the vertical offenses as impractical and grossly suboptimal at the most demanding levels, somewhat limited, if not condescending, to the trainee's advanced experience. They cite non-biased empirical/statistical evidence that proves the superiority of conservative, frequent, and dynamic scheming over the high-risk sameness of HIT. In periodization, an offensive line (recovery) can be schemed carefully (Dual Factor Theory) in order to push for more ambitious gains per yards.

In contrast, proponents of vertical HIT see the overweening complexity of advance periodization as disattracting, unproductive, and too probabilistic (wimpy, even) against the "certainty" and immediate reward of a completed long pass, and the apparent realities of the team's speed. And they always cite the Favre-ian comeback, a recent instance of really big personal gains, as proof of HIT's worth.

A smoothly run periodization scheme is like the 80s Montana or 90s Elway teams. A badly run one is the aimless "dink and dunk" of Steve Mariucci. A smoothly running HIT-esque scheme is USC running up points on UCLA. A failing HIT-esque scheme are the Norv Turner Raiders throwing interception after interception as Kerry Collins forces passes to Randy Moss.

[kingfish3]

wtfe, 2nd post, wonder who this is

[FarEastBeast]

wtfe, 2nd post, wonder who this is

LOL, I'm no message board king, but I was thinking the same thing.

[slippy]

Sorry for that wacky tangent. I guess nobody's into college football?

DRush's numbers seem very plausible to me. I corresponded with a guy some 10 years back, who was very much a die-hard HITer, who experienced that kind of gain when he first started out on HIT. I would add, though, that he appeared to have very, very good genetic makeup, and he might have enjoyed similar results on another program.

DRush, the next time you perform a static hold with pulldowns, consider holding it near extension rather than contraction. You'll get a better response from your lats.

[Madcow2]

Sorry for that wacky tangent. I guess nobody's into college football?

I thought it was pretty good. I wish I had the time right now to give it a 2nd read to pick up all the nuances but I thought it was pretty well thought out. Never really seen it presented like that so I didn't really have my thinking cap on until I got further into it. Hopefully All Pro comes accross it, he'll probably dig it.

[J.L.C.]

Sorry for that wacky tangent. I guess nobody's into college football?

I thought that was a well-thought-out way of explaining some different training paradigms. Knowledge of the various schemes seemed evident...more knowledge than I personally posess.

Second post or not, it wasn't full of obvious bias, misinformation, or ridiculous/unfounded claims.

Cheers and thanks for the read.