HIT vs Volume for sports

[cosmo34]

Which would be better for a baseball weight lifting program? I am in the middle of making my own program and thought I had it all figured out for what exercises and how many sets/reps, but then I came I across the HIT programs and they seem pretty promising. But it contradicts with what I had in mind for my program and seems to focus on different workouts than what I was going to do. Most of my focus was going to be on forearms, triceps, legs, and abs.

So which program would be best for a baseball player looking for strength and not really caring about big mass gains?

I can give my original program if you guys want to see it.

[Person]

Which would be better for a baseball weight lifting program? I am in the middle of making my own program and thought I had it all figured out for what exercises and how many sets/reps, but then I came I across the HIT programs and they seem pretty promising. But it contradicts with what I had in mind for my program and seems to focus on different workouts than what I was going to do. Most of my focus was going to be on forearms, triceps, legs, and abs.

So which program would be best for a baseball player looking for strength and not really caring about big mass gains?

I can give my original program if you guys want to see it.

Read the thread started by ETT for reasons NOT to do HIT. Just a quick fact, the schools that lead the NCAA in injuries use HIT programs.

[mimo]

Which would be better for a baseball weight lifting program? I am in the middle of making my own program and thought I had it all figured out for what exercises and how many sets/reps, but then I came I across the HIT programs and they seem pretty promising. But it contradicts with what I had in mind for my program and seems to focus on different workouts than what I was going to do. Most of my focus was going to be on forearms, triceps, legs, and abs.

So which program would be best for a baseball player looking for strength and not really caring about big mass gains?

I can give my original program if you guys want to see it.

neither one or the other

[TheZenMachine]

Read the thread started by ETT for reasons NOT to do HIT. Just a quick fact, the schools that lead the NCAA in injuries use HIT programs.

Not true at all actually. I'd like to see where this 'statistic' came from.

Here's some stats to chew on:

http://www.i-a-r-t.com/articles/trainingtofail.html
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...dsports-02.asp

I've personally found I have my best performance and least amount of injuries when doing HIT. Just last year I did a WSB routine for about 16 weeks, during that time I had one of the worst neck injuries I've ever had, stemming from a neck injury I had in high school wrestling. While doing HIT I never had a problem.

Kim Wood's Bengals had one of the lowest injury rates in the NFL while he was coaching, same with Dan Riley's redskins.

It's not that I think one is wholly better than the other, but I get sick of hearing periodization rhetoric that has a lack of understanding of what HIT is and falsified information.

[Person]

Not true at all actually. I'd like to see where this 'statistic' came from.

It's not? Do a search--NCAA provides the statistics.

[TheZenMachine]

Show me, I'm not finding it.

[cosmo34]

neither one or the other

what would you recommend then?

[mimo]

what would you recommend then?

a properly periodized program built arond the basic movements

[runjumpthrow]

Not true at all actually. I'd like to see where this 'statistic' came from.

Here's some stats to chew on:

http://www.i-a-r-t.com/articles/trainingtofail.html
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...dsports-02.asp

Well, your first article is by Matt Bryzcki, the "godfather" of the HIT gurus, so I really wouldn't believe much of what he says because there is obviously an agenda there.

With that being said, even hardcore Westside-based coaches like Jason Ferruggia, Joe DeFranco, and James Smith use elements of HIT-style programming with their athletes. DeFranco's WS4SB program with the RE Upper Body day is a good example.

[TheZenMachine]

Well, your first article is by Matt Bryzcki, the "godfather" of the HIT gurus, so I really wouldn't believe much of what he says because there is obviously an agenda there.

With that being said, even hardcore Westside-based coaches like Jason Ferruggia, Joe DeFranco, and James Smith use elements of HIT-style programming with their athletes. DeFranco's WS4SB program with the RE Upper Body day is a good example.

All the stats that were presented in that article are verifiable, though, so it doesn't matter. Every article has some agenda in by whoever is trying to sell their routine. Like I said, I don't believe that one is innately better than the other, I just think HIT works well because it builds conditioning, injury prevention (especially overuse injuries), and the time factor when you are an athlete like me who doesn't have hours and hours to spend just on weight training.

[mimo]

All the stats that were presented in that article are verifiable, though, so it doesn't matter. Every article has some agenda in by whoever is trying to sell their routine. Like I said, I don't believe that one is innately better than the other, I just think HIT works well because it builds conditioning, injury prevention (especially overuse injuries), and the time factor when you are an athlete like me who doesn't have hours and hours to spend just on weight training.

some HIT principles are good, but an athlete should never train to failure,specially during the season.
but working a muscle 2-3x per week(HIT) is good, doing a split schedule is just useless,IMO.one should use volume training,but not on a split program

[Person]

Not true at all actually. I'd like to see where this 'statistic' came from.

Here's some stats to chew on:

http://www.i-a-r-t.com/articles/trainingtofail.html
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...dsports-02.asp

That first article is one of the biggest jokes ever. Let's look at it this way, of the teams that used HIT, less than half made the playoffs (44% to be exact), while 57% of teams that did not use HIT DID make it to the playoffs. More than a 10% difference is rather significant I'd say. Moving on though, what type of teams were in the Super Bowl? Two non-HIT teams, one of which was coached by an extremely anti-HIT guy and they just so happened to win the Super Bowl (Denver). If you want to get the statistics out, you are already more than likely to make it to the play offs if you do not use HIT, while if you do, you are already likely to NOT make it.

A lot of the rest is bull****. University of Miami using HIT? Please. Penn State uses a modified HIT program, which is obviously pretty bad, but their running program is decent and somewhat makes up for it. They recruit many of the best kids in the nation and continually get owned by most of the Big 10 except for this year, which has been dominated by Freshmen red-shirt freshmen, and sophomores who have not been in the program long to get destroyed (although it would be pretty hard to mess up the freaks they got coming in this last year).

[Person]

Also, training to failure is not HIT. Virtually every system uses failure in some sense, even CFTS and Westside use failure at lower intensities (depletion push-ups in CFTS and RE bench in Westside). HIT is the problem, not failure, which can be programed into training fine.

[TheZenMachine]

Calm down, man, it's a friendly discussion.

What years are you talking about? The Tampa Bay Buccaneers use a HIT program and have won the super bowl and done very well. I don't think that the stats show anything other than you are just as likely to do well whether you use HIT, periodization, or any other form of strength training. I wouldn't say a 10% variation proves anything at all as far as the weight room is concerned. The only way you would be able to prove that one is better than the other would be if there was a huge disparity, consistently, of teams doing one protocal beating the other and completely out perfoming them, which is clearly not the case.

[Person]

Calm down, man, it's a friendly discussion.

What years are you talking about? The Tampa Bay Buccaneers use a HIT program and have won the super bowl and done very well. I don't think that the stats show anything other than you are just as likely to do well whether you use HIT, periodization, or any other form of strength training. I wouldn't say a 10% variation proves anything at all as far as the weight room is concerned. The only way you would be able to prove that one is better than the other would be if there was a huge disparity, consistently, of teams doing one protocal beating the other and completely out perfoming them, which is clearly not the case.

More than 10% IS a rather large disparity, especially when more than half of the NFL teams (16/30) at the time made the playoffs, yet HIT programs were not even at 50% (4/9). To continue though, who was the Buc's strength coach at the time they won the Super Bowl? I am interested because I have doubts it was the same guy (or else the article would have referenced that there were Super Bowl champs that used it, yet it did not), but maybe you would know the information on this. Also, I am plenty calm about this, but when an article is saying blatant lies or information to deceive the readers, it is rather annoying!

[mimo]

Also, training to failure is not HIT. Virtually every system uses failure in some sense, even CFTS and Westside use failure at lower intensities (depletion push-ups in CFTS and RE bench in Westside). HIT is the problem, not failure, which can be programed into training fine.

well thats not comparable. i mentioned failure one of the bad aspects of HIT for an athlete because,as i recall, HIT advocates doing one or two sets TO FAILURE on every exercise or most of them at least. and this is not a good principle to use in athletes on top of high intensity practices and/or games.

depletion pushups and pullups do not inflict the same muscle trauma that training to failure on heavy sets does.not even close.
i cant comment on the westside method because i havent read very much on it,except for some articles by defranco and dave tate and simmons.

but i think HIT isnt made for athletes and should not be used for such goal.
also, normally,most of the pro/college teams have genetic freaks playing for them that they do very well not because of how they train but because they are such good athletes that even a not so good weight-lifting program cant mess them up,provided its not totally retarded,of course

[Person]

well thats not comparable. i mentioned failure one of the bad aspects of HIT for an athlete because,as i recall, HIT advocates doing one or two sets TO FAILURE on every exercise or most of them at least. and this is not a good principle to use in athletes on top of high intensity practices and/or games.

depletion pushups and pullups do not inflict the same muscle trauma that training to failure on heavy sets does.not even close.
i cant comment on the westside method because i havent read very much on it,except for some articles by defranco and dave tate and simmons.

but i think HIT isnt made for athletes and should not be used for such goal.
also, normally,most of the pro/college teams have genetic freaks playing for them that they do very well not because of how they train but because they are such good athletes that even a not so good weight-lifting program cant mess them up,provided its not totally retarded,of course

HIT is not good for athletes. And yes, depletion push-ups are a form of failure that do not inflict the same trauma (at least, not on the nervous system), which is my whole point. That failure can be worked into a program depending on how you are going to implement it. I understand HIT protocols and I don't like their reasonings for failure. HIT has no other premise really than failure and the use of machines.

[mimo]

HIT is not good for athletes. And yes, depletion push-ups are a form of failure that do not inflict the same trauma (at least, not on the nervous system), which is my whole point. That failure can be worked into a program depending on how you are going to implement it. I understand HIT protocols and I don't like their reasonings for failure. HIT has no other premise really than failure and the use of machines.

yes,i totally agree with you

[TheZenMachine]

Can you post where you are getting your information from because I'm not sure where you are getting it at, but that article is a few years old, so some of what you are coming up with may be conflicting with recent stats as opposed to the stats from when they were taken. It's all verifiable. From what I can dig up, there are no lies in it at all, it's simply season results.

I think the 10% variation is not significant being that it necessarily translates being the effect weight room performance, how much effect does the weight room have on field performance? The coaches from the Huskers write in their book that the players with the best performance in the weight room are almost never the best players on the field. So tacking up a 10% variation (either for or against either system) is, in my opinion, short sighted of the rest of the program.

Typically the biggest critics of HIT have never done it and have next to know idea what it is, which is the feeling I'm getting here. HIT is not just training to failure on machines. HIT works with free weights, machines, bodyweight exercises, and any other resistance training method. It basically comes down to training briefly, infrequently, and safely. HIT is typically thought of as doing one set per exercise, but can be as high as 3 but never more. Few exercises are done, typically the the entire body is covered with minimal overlap. Training days are usually 2 or 3 times a week in most routines, but some do even less. HIT is hard work, you get out what you put into it and many people don't have what it takes to make it effective. The reason there few exercises, sets and training days are infrequent is because a person simply can't work that hard and do it often with out severe consequences.

I don't think failure is bad, it is excessive exercise that is bad. If you do 3+ sets to failure, then you will definitely result in excessive fatigue. For an athlete it is important to tone down workouts during the season (or in my case, leading up to competition), and work harder in the off season. Which would be using some aspects of the periodization scheme, just not so complicated.

As far as the Bucs go, I first heard they were a HIT team in 2001 and have been since as far as I know. I'll look further into it and post any links I can find.

[Person]

I think the 10% variation is not significant being that it necessarily translates being the effect weight room performance, how much effect does the weight room have on field performance? The coaches from the Huskers write in their book that the players with the best performance in the weight room are almost never the best players on the field. So tacking up a 10% variation (either for or against either system) is, in my opinion, short sighted of the rest of the program.

In what lifts? In bench press? Probably true. That's because the levers that help a person be good at football make them poor in lifts like the bench press (long arms v.s. short arms). What about Olympic lifts and deadlifts? Check the numbers there and we'll see about the best guys almost never being the strongest. What about attributes like vertical jump, which has a high correlation with performance? The S&C coach is not limited to weights, as you should know. More than 10% variation is significant, especially when the article is trying to highlight the fact, very proudly I might add, that less than half of the teams that use HIT make it to the playoffs!

Typically the biggest critics of HIT have never done it and have next to know idea what it is, which is the feeling I'm getting here. HIT is not just training to failure on machines. HIT works with free weights, machines, bodyweight exercises, and any other resistance training method. It basically comes down to training briefly, infrequently, and safely.

If briefly and infrequently is 4x a week minimum, then yes. My team had the same strength coach that worked at PSU and now the Steelers (Fuhrman--he only does it because his son goes to our highschool).

HIT is typically thought of as doing one set per exercise, but can be as high as 3 but never more. Few exercises are done, typically the the entire body is covered with minimal overlap. Training days are usually 2 or 3 times a week in most routines, but some do even less. HIT is hard work, you get out what you put into it and many people don't have what it takes to make it effective. The reason there few exercises, sets and training days are infrequent is because a person simply can't work that hard and do it often with out severe consequences.

Is training harder better than training smarter? Yes or no? I don't need an explanation, I just would like to hear your response. Also, is working "hard" defined as effort put in or overall intensity of the workout?

As far as the Bucs go, I first heard they were a HIT team in 2001 and have been since as far as I know. I'll look further into it and post any links I can find.

I find that hard to believe, but okay.

[TheZenMachine]

Upon checking on the Bucs training:

http://www.allprotraining.com/masano...oachoffice.htm
http://www.strongerathlete.com/feb_11_02.html

In reference to the book Complete Conditioning for Football by Michael Arthur and Bryan Bailey ( strength and conditioning coaches for Nebraska) it say and I quote:

"Athletic abilities can be objectively measured by field tests. Several years ago we administered a battery of field tests that measured several of the athletic abilities mentioned above. By statistically analyzing the test data we determined which athletic abilities were most specific to football performance. We first had the players complete several field tests, the we divided players according to their actual ability to play football during a game. Players who played the most were ranked number one. Players who played occasionally were ranked number 2. Players who played only when the outcome of the game was already decided or nor at all were ranked three. The field tests were then correlated with each player's assigned ranking.

Players ranked number one correlated highest with the athletic abilities of speed (10 and 40 yard dashes), agility (pro agility run), and power (vertical jump). Surprisingly, muscular strength (squat and bench press), muscular endurance (situps, dips, pullups), aerobic endurance (1.5 mile run), anaerobic endurance(300 yard shuttle run), flexibility (sit and reach, shoulder elevations), and upper body power (shot put) didn't correlate well to the number one ranked players."

That pretty much sums that up. The strongest athletes were not necessarily the best. Although the vertical jump has a high correlation with the best athletes, it has no impact on this discussion since we are discussing the strength training of athletes and, as you have stated, S&C are not limited to weights either for HIT or Periodization teams.
And yes, levers are different for various sports, movement, etc. but clearly this is appears to be as good a correlation as you can get for attributes correlating with field performance. These will also, obviously, be different for different sports.

I'm not sure why it makes a difference who your high school coach is, other than it shows exactly what you've been exposed to and what you haven't (obviously not HIT). But I can say that I've been exposed to periodization schemes in wrestling in high school and college, HIT in college as well, bodybuilding programs during my tenure in that 'sport'. I've also done variations of all types of schemes since coming to the MMA arena. I've tried all sorts of training programs, but the one I've had the best results with has been HIT. I've done my best lifts training 3 times a week, so I'm not sure why you say 4 times a week minimum is required. I've trained with national level judokas, boxers, and wrestlers who have done great lifting once a week. That's personal experience, which means nothing to other people, but definitely qualifies for me.

Is training harder training smarter? Well it depends. HIT is training hard, but it's training within what is needed to get better. It could be said that 5 or 6 high intensity sets is training hard than doing 1 or 2, but it isn't smarter to do that as overtraining quickly would stagnate you (at least without chemical enhancement). Harder isn't necessarily better, but smarter is. Smarter by HIT standards means not overtraining, reducing overuse injuries, ligament and tendon damage from ballistic movements, cutting out that which does not pertain to the sport, etc. Lifting harder, but more briefly and more infrequently reduces injuries and overuse injuries, leaves more time/energy for training the actual sport.

Oh yeah, the 10% difference, while it is, as you say, significant by teams making it to the playoffs it DOES NOT stand to reason that the 10% difference is due to weight room training protocal. That is why I say it is not significant. Also while, as you say, the 4 of 9 HIT teams made it to the playoffs, the point of the article is that the HIT teams had winning records against periodization teams. That just means that it is likely that HIT teams were losing to HIT teams prior to making playoffs. The schedule isn't broken down by lifting protocals. Further saying that X HIT team is doing well only because they have a good running program or jumping program, while it gives you a reason why a HIT team might do well (because in your mind you believe they can't possibly) please refrain, it is poor science.

Still waiting for the references for your information.

[Person]

You missed the fact that the coach uses HIT considering he was a previous S&C coach at PSU and is the current coach at the Steelers (you can look it up).

You use combine bench test to support your argument, which is a joke. 225#s for reps? Again, I said check lifts where longer limbs help, but you provided bench (which biomechanically should be better in people who are not as good at blocking/throwing/etc) since they have shorter arms) and squat, another very tough one to call since it is definitely NOT beneficial to have extremely long legs or a short torso in squatting, while it is for speed sports like football. Also, where was that "study" performed? Shotput (depending on how it is done) can be subjective depending on technique. A guy around in my area a couple years ago was a top ranked linebacker and was given full ride to a top D1 school. He was ridiculously strong (repping 500 in the squat) and benched over 400lbs without extensive training. He was decent at the shot, but clearly not where he should have been because of form issues, not because he did not have the power (shotput has a ton of lowerbody by the way).

lol HIT teams losing to HIT teams? Give me a break. Let's look at the end results. Who made it to the playoffs--who made it to the SB?

I won't spend the time to look for the NCAA bit--it is available, but if you cannot find it don't worry about it because there are bigger fish to fry in this discussion.

How is HIT infrequent if you reference programs that lift 4 (minimum) or more times a week (PSU)?!

[TheZenMachine]

Your making inferences to quotes and not reading everything. You mention the Combine bench test, which is never once mentioned and I clearly referenced the book by the Husker's S&C coaches, when/how/and exact perameters of some of the tests (shot put for example) are not mentioned, others are fully explained. The bench and squat tests are 1RM tests. If you are saying the tests are a joke then you are saying the periodization coaches at Nebraska are a joke because it was completely devised by them. Further, you are contradicting your own self when saying that the squat is iffy, the bench is iffy, what do you suggest? You mention the deadlift before, the squat uses many of the same muscles. You can't throw out test findings because they don't match your expected outcome....that's bad science.

Who made it to the superbowl? Which years? The bottom line is that in the year(s) studied the HIT teams had winning records VS periodization teams...which is much more conductive to the argument than just who won certain games, overall the HIT teams performed better. But I'm not using that to say that HIT was the cause of them actually performing better, there are too many variables... What I am saying is that it DOES prove that HIT worked just as well, being that if the periodization teams had such a huge advantage over the HIT teams, then the HIT teams would be devastated by the periodization teams, which they clearly are not.

As far as PSU goes, I don't know their program, and I don't know what they do. It could be any number of things. HIT isn't a narrow protocal with clearly defined perameters.

The NCAA reference is of the utmost importance if that is where you got your information, otherwise you are just spouting rhetoric. Any references to performance must be backed up by proof, otherwise it ruins the legitmacy of the discussion. Information I'm looking through everything and I can't find anything on this information. It's even difficult to find information on what each team does for their S&C programs, other than ones of heard of and can back up with references.

[TheZenMachine]

Just looking up some PSU stuff, I came across this article, which is quite interesting and is in the realm of this discussion:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04282/392328.stm

[all pro]

checkout the workouts forum: why you should do only one set to failure thread. At the very least it's entertaining

[Henry_s return]

How many olympic medals in weightlifting or track and field were won using hit??? How many powerlifting records broken with hit?? How many WSM titles? Highland game winners????................. That's what I thought.

[TheZenMachine]

HIT is not for powerlifting or weightlifting and those things are not for sports. It's different specialization. You don't want or have the time to be specialized in those things if you are an athlete in a different sport.

How many powerlifters/Olympic lifter/WSM have won a Professional fighting title? How many have won the heisman trophy? How many of them have medaled in Olympic Boxing? That's what I thought.

[Henry_s return]

HIT is not for powerlifting or weightlifting and those things are not for sports. It's different specialization. You don't want or have the time to be specialized in those things if you are an athlete in a different sport.

That's what I thought.

Ermm, another empty jedi response. Athletes in most sports need power, balance,speed,agility,and kenetic awareness. Hit and all it's cousins do a poor job of this.Is it any wonder that most of the ncaa top football teams employ cleans as a staple in their programs? To say nothing of the NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL, and top european soccer leagues.

[runjumpthrow]

ZenMachine -

How does a HIT-style approach build speed-strength, which is ESSENTIAL in most sports? My understanding of exercise science is that the set/rep scheme used by HIT programs, while inducing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, does not increase muscular force.

Knowing that, how will a HIT-style program create athletes who are faster and more explosive? I don't think that it is possible to accomplish this with a HIT program that does not incorporate some kind of plyometric or dynamic effort training.

In my opinion, a HIT-style program "works" because the person using it is ALREADY a great athlete. If you have an average, weak, small high school kid, that kid will see much greater benefits using an Olympic or powerlifting based approach rather than a HIT approach.

[TheZenMachine]

Ermm, another empty jedi response. Athletes in most sports need power, balance,speed,agility,and kenetic awareness. Hit and all it's cousins do a poor job of this.Is it any wonder that most of the ncaa top football teams employ cleans as a staple in their programs? To say nothing of the NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL, and top european soccer leagues.

Is it any coincidence that of the teams that use HIT do just as well as those that use other programs?