has anyone here had any success with HIT/Heavy Duty training?
read a bunch of conflicting information, but this type of training seems very time-efficient (albeit extremely hard)
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
has anyone here had any success with HIT/Heavy Duty training?
It works for me, though I think it is more because of the fact that the huge breaks actually enable me to go hard at the gym.
I go 2 days a week for 45 minutes and have made way more progress than when I went 4 days a week.
could you post your routine please? and maybe pics of your progress?
I cycle through
Chest, Arms
Shoulder, Back
Legs
Two examples of progress were incline dumbell press from 30 to 40kg for 10 reps within a month, and a deadlifts of 300kg after 3 months after struggling to get above 250kg for ages.
now post body i know you won't cause you are dyel
TouchE
post body
i only took the even more rest days advice and i have unstucked myself
Myo reps are better
HIT with myoreps
This fricker got me to skip the gym last night. I'll get some of his clips on instagram and... it really does make sense that you need to have rest days so the muscles can grow.
I still did some rows w bands @ home, and a few sets of dips, and went for a short walk. But I really would prefer to spend 90 min working out at the gym.
The critics don't even know what it is so keep that in mind. Natural Hypertrophy for example claimed he did hours of research and the only thing he talked about, across 2 videos for a total of over 3 hours, was he got mad that Mentzer said dips are best for triceps, which they are. Never once touched on the actual theory or physiology.
Help a moron out.... I love dips. And I try to lean forward a tad as you're supposed to.
Is that still working triceps well or is there a different position which benefits them more?
lean = what part of the chest/triceps
elbow flare = chest or triceps
nh is a pseud idk how anyone watches his videos all the way through. I just look at his programs because they're free and the themes are interesting.
There's also a lecture that Mike Israetel made a long time ago about it. It was negative (which is fine), but very surface-level and entirely based on his beliefs on theory and not experience. I wish he had just tried it for himself.
what is your issue with israetel's lecture? none of what you said makes sense to me, he gives in depth reasons why low volume doesn't work as well, and gives detailed reasons with actual studies to back them up as well
no idea where you're getting "surface level" from as it was very exhaustive, maybe you can give actual examples
The issue with those guys and the participants they use in the study is that they never go to freak failure because they are lazy collage students. Lyle McDonald or Drew baye are way better to apply their principles. 2 set to real failure is all you need
"surface level" is the impression I had after watching it a very long time ago. Because you responded and I want a refresher, I will watch it again and write my thoughts. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1reYKpJ0Wk&t=375s)
3:31 Here he states that training one working set to failure "causes a disproportionate amount of fatigue". It doesn't. It is much less fatiguing than the standard multiset training that he recommends (ex. 3x12 @ RPE 7-8).
4:47 One the same topic as the last point. His graph looks nice, but doesn't account for the increased volume needed by people doing submaximal training.
6:57 He claims that "more sets is better" as one goes from beginner to intermediate, and then states "so long as you can recover from it". I think we can all agree with this, but he fails to touch on the extremely important positive relationship between trainee level (amount of muscle possessed), stress inflicted per set, and the rest required to compensate.
7:47 Studies done on beginners aren't useful. They will ALWAYS suggest higher monthly volume because their workouts do not inflict as much stress on their bodies.
9:02 Again, this data is for beginners.
10:09 This could be really important as a point against HIT. I wish there was more detail. I don't see any supporting points, or justification for the graph, in the four meta-analyses he linked.
10:32 He states that it's difficult to get too much volume and that more volume is better. If that were true, each person could train for 16 hours a day and become a competitive bodybuilder. It won't. It doesn't work like that.
11:20 This is an excellent graph imo. However, it does not touch upon the fact that stress per set goes up as we become stronger. The value I get from this graph is that beginners should train with a higher volume. I agree that they should. Their bodies can take it. This is not a criticism of HIT.
14:22 He states that one set to failure 2x per week (I assume per bodypart) is not enough volume to justify the amount of rest. I disagree, it depends entirely on the person doing it. For a beginner, sure, the volume could be higher.
14:56 He states that one set to failure is "probably not enough to disrupt homeostasis". This is absolutely wrong. I know it from experience. Again, Israetel never even tried it. Why doesn't he just try it for himself and see?
16:15 He makes a poor assumption here. He's assuming that every trainee does the same amount of damage to their body and has the same recovery ability. The graphic that he presents on-screen is what I would expect from a beginner that is hitting each body part once every two weeks, with unnecessarily long rest time.
16:47 He says "failure training is not sustainable" with no justification whatsoever. I disagree completely. He says that the literature on volume training is crystal-clear, which is hilariously wrong. When a subject pool contains any amount of beginners or roiders, all data from that experiment is worthless. If there was a single study done only on advanced natties, that would be extremely valuable. To my knowledge, such a study doesn't exist.
18:31 He says that multiple sets, multiple times per week is conclusively better. He never tells you an exact number of sets or an exact frequency. Why stop at 6? Why not 7, or 8, or 40 sets per body part per week? Why not every single day?
18:40 I've watched a lot of his videos, and he never explains why a deload is necessary in a program. In my opinion, if a trainee is so overworked that he needs a deload, the program itself is flawed.
18:46 He says to stay 2, 3, or 4 reps shy of failure. With this, you can train for longer periods of time and do lots of sets. But why? Why is that better?
Criticisms on his sources:
The first one linked finds a negative relationship between volume and growth from "previously untrained" to "recreationally trained", but a positive relationship between volume and growth from "recreationally trained" to "athletes". Well yeah, of course it does. Lots of athletes are on steroids. Their bodies can recover from more volume.
Study 2: Does not differentiate between beginners and advanced trainees in the subject pool.
Study 3: It just says "trained and untrained subjects" without any mention of what the criteria are to be placed into the trained category. It also does not specify a study length.
Study 4: Same thing.
I REALLY dislike these meta-analyses. I think they're much less useful than just one study. A meta-analysis is going to be much less stringent on the quality of the test subjects. With individual studies, we could at least look at the data and get more information on the participants. Mike's recommendations are limited by the recommendations of the researchers.
After watching it again, taking notes, and reading the four articles he linked, my impression is still that it is a surface level critique. In his defense, it's a 20 minute lecture based on four meta-analyses. Of course it would be.
My biggest complaints are about the meta-analyses that he uses to justify what he put into the lecture. I don't dislike Mike Israetel himself. I've watched a lot of his content because I like him and I think a lot of it is useful. At the time that he made this, he never even tried HIT. His beliefs are based not even on studies, but meta-analyses that I think are, quite frankly, utter garbage. If just one of his slides had been on his personal experience with it, I could take the lecture more seriously.
>If just one of his slides had been on his personal experience with it, I could take the lecture more seriously.
also to complain that he isn't giving his personal experiences is laughable, it's an academic presentation that is literally titled "A SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE". his anecdotal experience isn't relevant
>Here he states that training one working set to failure "causes a disproportionate amount of fatigue". It doesn't. It is much less fatiguing than the standard multiset training that he recommends
it literally says on the top of the point that he's talking about "IN REPEATED SUCCESSION", as in, high intensity is disproportionately more fatiguing than stopping at 2RIR. that's just common sense. how are you going to tell me 4 sets of full out squats is less fatiguing than 4 sets at RPE8
>doesn't account for the increased volume needed by people doing submaximal training.
again, he is giving these graphs and points on the assumption that you are training to failure with a standard amount of volume that is typical with most bodybuilding programs. he hasn't even started critiquing low volume yet.
>Studies done on beginners aren't useful. They will ALWAYS suggest higher monthly volume because their workouts do not inflict as much stress on their bodies.
that is literally the opposite of the truth. the high intensity study uses complete beginners and shows the opposite of what you just said, that they get the same gains from 1 set as multiple sets.
>He states that it's difficult to get too much volume and that more volume is better. If that were true, each person could train for 16 hours a day and become a competitive bodybuilder. It won't. It doesn't work like that.
that is not at all what he said. he said within typical splits, the more you do seemingly the better. then in the very next slide he immediately adresses the strawman that you're presenting of just spamming volume and becoming an ifbb pro, as you increase volume you will eventually not be able to recover and thats when more volume is no longer better
im not gonna keep going through all your posts because you're arguing in bad faith and just taking soundbites out of context instead of looking at it holistically, it's a waste of time.
>im not gonna keep going through all your posts because you're arguing in bad faith
I didn't ask you to go through them. You asked me what my issues were with his lecture, so I gave them to you.
>as you increase volume you will eventually not be able to recover and thats when more volume is no longer better
There's more to it than that. Again, this is a surface-level explanation. If you would read all of what I wrote you would see how they fit together, though whether you do or not doesn't make a difference to me.
For Christ sake, he has the word "Israel" in his name. "Ohhh I'll put a T in there, that'll throw the goyim off."
I enjoyed it a lot while cutting weight the last year or so. It took a little experimentation for me to get it where I wanted it, but then it was smooth sailing. I consistently gained a rep or two each week on pretty much everything. The training was intense, of course, which suits me well, but I can see a lot of people struggling to do it effectively. And your impression is correct, it's extremely time-efficient, kind of like an 80/20 for hypertrophy; I was spending around 2-2.5 hours total in the gym each week.
Like the other anon said, most of the critics don't even really know what they're working with. Your best bet is to try it, build up from the base principles, and see how you like it. I'd be happy to go over how I did it, if you'd like some guideposts for your own experimentation.
I've just recently switched to Fortitude, and it's dramatically more flexible, which is more advantageous for me right now.
Okay so I’ve been semi implementing his routine from high volume 4-5 days a week
>two rest days in between workouts
>upper/lower split
>upper day A: I start with smith machine incline for 6-10 reps and the first working set I give it all I got, then two more lighter backoff sets (I know mentzer said not to do this but frick it), then a row or pullups with same principle as the incline then some DB volume work of 3-4 sets
>lower day I start with front squats the same principle as above, then 3-4 sets of accessory work
>basically I hit the gym 2-3 times a week
Also I watch my diet so that I am basically staying at the same BW or very slowly gaining. What do you think?
Are you progressing?
It's not HIT, but if it works, then who cares, you know?
For reference, what I ended up with:
>rep tempo: 4s up, 4s down, 1s at each end
>one work set of 6-10 taken to concentric failure, followed by forced reps until I couldn't maintain the tempo on the eccentric
>hit each muscle group once per week on a two way split (also not HIT because convenient frequency instead of recovery-based)
I had to make modifications for some lifts like deadlifts (obviously not forcing reps on those), but it was dead simple. One set.
yes
I wish menzer overdosed sooner so I could be spared the homosexual worship on this gay ass board
I’m gay I made this post and I am gay. Had to jump vpns which explains the quick reply
It's literally just 1 guy spamming nonstop. He only lifts 1 hour per month so he has lots of time to smoke meth and spam the board.
I've been following his recommended routine for 4 months or so and have made consistent strength gains. I didn't start tracking my strength gains until I started HIT so I can't compare it to how I was before.
This is the routine: https://youtu.be/852rGXEa5wQ
This moron and his followers fail to realize that it's possible to build up work capacity. An experienced lifter can get pretty close to failure on every single set.
>An experienced lifter can get pretty close to failure on every single set.
what difference does it make though
>This moron and his followers fail to realize that it's possible to build up work capacity
You don't even know enough about it to make a good criticism.
He explicitly states in High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way that work capacity increases with training experience. I think he said the same thing in the audiotapes.
He also states that stress on the body goes up at a greater rate, hence the positive relationship between level of musculature and required rest.
you obviously don't get the point of HIT
you can grind yourself to shreds by mashing a lot of sets and sessions, but it's borderline pointless and potentially harmful
you can get the same results strength- and hypertrophy-wise by doing an infrequent high intensity training, which means less fatigue and less cumulative damage to your connective tissue
I know it can sound counterintuitive to someone familiarized only with the "classic" ways of lifting, but it's in fact pretty logical
it's also worth mentioning that if you're natty your regenerative potential is capped pretty low and there's virtually no way around that
no way around it?
Sleep more eat more
like I said, the cap is pretty low, even if you optimize your sleep and nutrition to the fullest extent
only drugs can bypass it
dunno what constitutes as a success, but I was consequently lowering my volume until I got to 2 intense one set per exercise workout a week and I'm seeing quite a lot of strength progress (on a cut) without spending too much time in the gym + my joints feel better, so I guess it seems more optimal than doing something more time consuming
if you do way too much volume you get rhabdo
if you do significantly less volume than that, which is still more than most people do it's fine.
if you don't lift for 2 weeks it's also fine. so the takeaway should be that none of these variables actually matter.
things that actually matter are hitting all your muscle groups (close to failure) every 2 weeks at least and having genetics for muscle growth. I think 1/3rd of the population literally cannot get bigger muscles. anything else is splitting hairs or junk science to sell you programs or supplements or machines
You have to be a very advanced lifter already for it to work, otherwise you can't lift at a high enough intensity
I tried it and it didn't really work and I got far more shoulder strains, elbow/knee pain, etc. It's boring as shit but leaving 2-3 reps in the tank and doing more sets just works way better for hypertrophy, in my experience anyway.
muscles burn like frick so i know it works, it's a no brainer
>no bro you're losing out on 2% gains not training 30 hours a week 6 days a week with sunday off for jesus
If your answer isn't "so what" then I can't help you. This is what that volume meta analysis that youtubers hold up as the bible actually says. It's all sub 10% differences which is well within the range of random deviation and then the author goes full moron and says 20 sets a week minimum for "each bodypart" whatever the frick that means. Is a 5lb lateral raise the same thing as a 200lb overhead press? According to him it is and he pretends to be a scientist.
>Brad Schoenfield
Anything with his name on it is worthless, I say.
I agree with most people in this thread but I also think if every home/apt came with built-in pullup bar, this board and bodybuilding wouldn't even exist
The stronger you get the less volume you need. Multiple set training is fine for most of you. As you get more and more advanced you want to slowly scale it back essentially.
I've been doing a program with one set per exercise, three exercises a day, three days a week for about four and a half weeks.
I have gotten stronger every session, as promised. It has been steady, not dramatic. At least one more rep on each exercise every week, but sometimes much higher. For instance from one week to another I went from 7 clean reps and to 16 clean reps.
Oddly, I've lost about 5 lbs (average, it fluctuates about 5 lbs throughout the day anyways). Might mean nothing. We'll see.
Since I'm getting stronger I might as well keep this up and see how much muscle I build after maybe a year, as long as I don't keep losing weight (I went from 180-185 lbs to 175-180 lbs).
I naturally fall into it if I workout with intensity and volume
>t. on second rest day
>Depends on your genetic response to training and recovery ability.
>If you have excellent training response it will work very well for you.
>If your recovery management is garbage it may also seem to work better for you than high volume.
>But everyone else is best suited towards higher volume work.
>Muscle protein synthesis peaks at 5 sets per session per exercise (assuming near-failure). And these protein synthesis peaks only last maximally for 24 hours after you are a trained lifter.
>Ideally you don't incur too much muscle damage per workout(stop 1-3 reps away from failure) so that you can peak MPS as often as possible throughout the week (so that you aren't dipping into muscle protein breakdown too often)
>Average to poor responders to training have poorer genetic-level mechanosensor sensitivity in muscles (and poor hormone receptor genes) to initiate anabolic signaling and thus require multiple hard sets per session (up to 5), high threshold motor units to be active in each, to kickstart the process and more than one session per week to grow at a reasonable pace.
>Using eccentrics and going to complete failure can increase muscle damage too much for frequent recovery and would be counterintuitive. Going to complete failure also increases injury risk massively.
t. was a HIT enthusiast for a year and gained some strength till a plateau but actually lost size over the year. Exploded in size in 3 months (15 lbs) once I switched back to a higher volume routine.
>Exploded in size in 3 months (15 lbs) once I switched back to a higher volume routine
I've noticed switching between more intense vs more volume every half year or so seems to work well for me.
its almost as if it's good to switch it up every once in a while and give your body a fresh stimuli
Mentzer said to not do any extra volume if you did your max intensity set because it will hinder recovery, but if you are resting 3+ days between workouts, and on top of that training a different body part, shouldn’t that be plenty of time to recover from that extra volume? How tf did anyone make gains at all if moderate to high volume with moderate to high frequency? Shouldn’t they have pissed blood and overtrained and all fricked up? Is it okay if I do one or two lighter backoff sets after my max out set?
I mean you could do a maximum intensity excercise first, then add volume with a secondary excersise (although you won't be able to hard on this one)
I usually do something like this: I go to or near failure, stop doing the exercise, let go of the weight, take 10 deep breaths and go at it again and then once more. It's like one serious set with two finishers.
Didn't Yates do something similar? What does he say about it?
It varied over his lifting days but basically 4 day split, the same exercises got repeated every 6 days (or 7 days if he felt like needing extra recovery days).