- Joined
- Aug 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 43
HIT for average individuals
by MP
I have developed a relatively objective analysis of the online fitness community. I say objective because I never take part in discussion across the various forums that exist; from ironman to bodybuilding.com. There is great division between people who take part in these discussions of fitness. You can categorize the methods of trainers into two sects. The first, and most popular of the two, are volume trainers. The focus of these individuals is on using multiple sets and more frequent training to advocate muscle growth.
The other division is represented by intensity trainers, who indicate that fewer workouts composed of single set exercises (to muscle failure) will advocate the greatest muscle growhth. There are an innumerable number of distinct methods in each category, though they tend to follow (of necessity) the principles set forth by each training philosophy.
In evaluating both sides, I have recognized that each is completely sure of their method (as they should be), but tend toward condescending and malicious sentiment to those that disagree with their own view. HIT (High Intensity Training) proponents, by far in the minority, are commonly attacked viciously when presenting arguments on most body building forums. HIT users are not, however, above shamelessly petty attacks on those HVT (High Volume Training) advocates.
What is often lost in the argument are five points that I feel are of significant importance relative to the general population and athletes, and therefore should be at the forefront of debate. Fitness online, however, is largely composed of bodybuilders, whose primary intent is not (by their own admission) functional strength but muscle hypertrophy (enlarged muscles).
I will forego arguing why HIT is fine for bodybuilding, because such an argument will get no where. The greatest argument against HIT in bodybuilding is that, while it works well for functional strength, it does not induce hypertrophy like a more traditional HVT workout. Again, we will avoid any needless discussion of this, as most reading have probably already have made up their mind on the topic.
There is, however, no argument to be made (except, perhaps, by those on the fringe of lunatic ignorance) that an effective, properly conducted HIT program significantly increase ones strength. I will argue that a person of average genetics will progress faster on a HIT program, especially if ones intention is to get stronger. Even if that is not the case, and progress could be assumed to be identical on a good program of either philosophy, I arrive at point in this argument to why, for the general population and athletes, HIT is a far superior method. I will outline these points below:
1) Time
HIT workouts are brief of necessity, and done with days of rest inbetween. If strength is not increased every workout, a workout was wasted. There is no room to debate: either up reps or weight, or take additional time off. It is in this that the "average" person will see the best results. Those of us with work, school, wives, husbands or children can now keep the true priorities in life actual priorities while achieving optimal fitness. Gone are the incessant hours of pumping in the gym; time that could be spent doing things of greater importance. I can already hear the rebuttal to this argument: if you want to get real results, you have to sacrifice for it. I won't dignify that with a response, other than to say that individuals with such a belief probably have no real sense of priority.
2) Stress
The stress factor is directly related to time. Anyone who has lifted for several hours a day for months at a time knows the physical and psychological tolls that are inflicted on one living on a schedule such as this. Average individuals already have enough to worry about without dealing with the (as I believe) unnecessary rigors of volume training. As an intensity trainer, though intensely difficult, I find the days in the gym to be a relief of stress psychologically, whereas volume training was a cause of stress for me.
3) Confusion
Confusion is one of the greatest psychological tolls of traditional volume training. Keeping up with number of sets, exercises, and lifting techniques incorporated into every workout (drop sets, rest pause, etcetera) will likely result in trainees who aren't sure how to continue, aren't sure what is the most effective, aren't sure where or when to change techniques. Most people don't have the time or capacity to rifle through muscle magazines (long heralded as training bibles, specifically promoting volume training). HIT is simple in that it rarely changes, stays with a consistent set of exercises, and generally avoids techniques like drop-sets (again, for average trainers) which are generally not necessary.
4) Tracking
One of the most overlooked fundamental benefits of HIT is that it makes for much, much easier tracking. The reasons behind this are numerous. Most obvious is the total number of exercises and sets. Less to keep track of. Also, doing a single set will allow one to use a greater amount of weight because of the all out effort of the set. People who do X number of sets (lets say 4) of X number of reps (lets say 8) will not consistently give a one hundred percent effort on each set. If they did, they wouldn't be able to perform 8 reps on subsequent sets once the first is completed. A good real world example of this is sprinting. Sprinting until one collapses at one hundred percent effort will leave one incapaciates for several minutes to sprint again, and once the initial sprint is completed (because of numerous factors, included lactic acid buildup, depleted glycogen, and issues with the CNS and neuron firing patterns) subsequent sprints will not be capable of being done at the same rate. Overlapping of muscles also clouds ability to track in volume training. If you did three back exercises and then do a deadlift, do you really think your deadlift weight is an accurate reflection of your strength? I saw this effect frequently, especially depending on when I did the exercise in my routine, as a volume trainer. I couldn't tell, from workout to workout, if I was in fact getting stronger or if I was just performing better because I did the exercise before certain anscillary muscles were fatigued? The relative absence of overlapping and the single set for a handful of exercises (at most six, if you are using a traditional HIT approach) makes result tracking easier tenfold.
5) Athletes
The second most overlooked fundamental benefit of HIT is in relation to athletes. Athletes are interested in a handful of things: specifically, speed, agility, endurance, and strength. Athletes aren't concerned with looking good ala bodybuilders. Instead, athletes (lets use football as an example) focus on being able to move fast, move with mobility, and demonstrate power. Here, traditional arguments against HIT fly out the window. Avoiding senseless hours in the gym and lifting for strength allows exceptional amounts of time to focus on other key athletic elements. Lets say that HIT really didn't induce much hypertrophy (which I believe is absurd, but lets say that it doesn't for arguments sake). To an athlete, that wouldn't be a bad thing. A 200 pound linebacker bench pressing 350 pounds doesn't care if he is packing on weight. If he does pack on muscle weight it won't necessarily hurt, but if he doesn't, it won't hurt either. What matters is his ability to generate force. Beyond this, spending less time lifting is not as traumatic on joints and connective tissue and allows for better recovery from intense workouts that aren't related to weight training.
I have done my best to spare you, the reader, from more needless argument. Bodybuilders tend to volume, and oddly enough those of us who just want to get in shape mimic the lunacy of their efforts. This makes no sense; by admission, most of us don't want the steroid induced bulges of those we see in muscle magazines. So why do we work out as they do? Instead, it seems the more common man and woman would derive much better benefit in relationship to time and stress by incorporating a good HIT program into their lifestyle.
My bro is almost as smart as me
He writes the occasional article, and I think he does an excellent job.
by MP
I have developed a relatively objective analysis of the online fitness community. I say objective because I never take part in discussion across the various forums that exist; from ironman to bodybuilding.com. There is great division between people who take part in these discussions of fitness. You can categorize the methods of trainers into two sects. The first, and most popular of the two, are volume trainers. The focus of these individuals is on using multiple sets and more frequent training to advocate muscle growth.
The other division is represented by intensity trainers, who indicate that fewer workouts composed of single set exercises (to muscle failure) will advocate the greatest muscle growhth. There are an innumerable number of distinct methods in each category, though they tend to follow (of necessity) the principles set forth by each training philosophy.
In evaluating both sides, I have recognized that each is completely sure of their method (as they should be), but tend toward condescending and malicious sentiment to those that disagree with their own view. HIT (High Intensity Training) proponents, by far in the minority, are commonly attacked viciously when presenting arguments on most body building forums. HIT users are not, however, above shamelessly petty attacks on those HVT (High Volume Training) advocates.
What is often lost in the argument are five points that I feel are of significant importance relative to the general population and athletes, and therefore should be at the forefront of debate. Fitness online, however, is largely composed of bodybuilders, whose primary intent is not (by their own admission) functional strength but muscle hypertrophy (enlarged muscles).
I will forego arguing why HIT is fine for bodybuilding, because such an argument will get no where. The greatest argument against HIT in bodybuilding is that, while it works well for functional strength, it does not induce hypertrophy like a more traditional HVT workout. Again, we will avoid any needless discussion of this, as most reading have probably already have made up their mind on the topic.
There is, however, no argument to be made (except, perhaps, by those on the fringe of lunatic ignorance) that an effective, properly conducted HIT program significantly increase ones strength. I will argue that a person of average genetics will progress faster on a HIT program, especially if ones intention is to get stronger. Even if that is not the case, and progress could be assumed to be identical on a good program of either philosophy, I arrive at point in this argument to why, for the general population and athletes, HIT is a far superior method. I will outline these points below:
1) Time
HIT workouts are brief of necessity, and done with days of rest inbetween. If strength is not increased every workout, a workout was wasted. There is no room to debate: either up reps or weight, or take additional time off. It is in this that the "average" person will see the best results. Those of us with work, school, wives, husbands or children can now keep the true priorities in life actual priorities while achieving optimal fitness. Gone are the incessant hours of pumping in the gym; time that could be spent doing things of greater importance. I can already hear the rebuttal to this argument: if you want to get real results, you have to sacrifice for it. I won't dignify that with a response, other than to say that individuals with such a belief probably have no real sense of priority.
2) Stress
The stress factor is directly related to time. Anyone who has lifted for several hours a day for months at a time knows the physical and psychological tolls that are inflicted on one living on a schedule such as this. Average individuals already have enough to worry about without dealing with the (as I believe) unnecessary rigors of volume training. As an intensity trainer, though intensely difficult, I find the days in the gym to be a relief of stress psychologically, whereas volume training was a cause of stress for me.
3) Confusion
Confusion is one of the greatest psychological tolls of traditional volume training. Keeping up with number of sets, exercises, and lifting techniques incorporated into every workout (drop sets, rest pause, etcetera) will likely result in trainees who aren't sure how to continue, aren't sure what is the most effective, aren't sure where or when to change techniques. Most people don't have the time or capacity to rifle through muscle magazines (long heralded as training bibles, specifically promoting volume training). HIT is simple in that it rarely changes, stays with a consistent set of exercises, and generally avoids techniques like drop-sets (again, for average trainers) which are generally not necessary.
4) Tracking
One of the most overlooked fundamental benefits of HIT is that it makes for much, much easier tracking. The reasons behind this are numerous. Most obvious is the total number of exercises and sets. Less to keep track of. Also, doing a single set will allow one to use a greater amount of weight because of the all out effort of the set. People who do X number of sets (lets say 4) of X number of reps (lets say 8) will not consistently give a one hundred percent effort on each set. If they did, they wouldn't be able to perform 8 reps on subsequent sets once the first is completed. A good real world example of this is sprinting. Sprinting until one collapses at one hundred percent effort will leave one incapaciates for several minutes to sprint again, and once the initial sprint is completed (because of numerous factors, included lactic acid buildup, depleted glycogen, and issues with the CNS and neuron firing patterns) subsequent sprints will not be capable of being done at the same rate. Overlapping of muscles also clouds ability to track in volume training. If you did three back exercises and then do a deadlift, do you really think your deadlift weight is an accurate reflection of your strength? I saw this effect frequently, especially depending on when I did the exercise in my routine, as a volume trainer. I couldn't tell, from workout to workout, if I was in fact getting stronger or if I was just performing better because I did the exercise before certain anscillary muscles were fatigued? The relative absence of overlapping and the single set for a handful of exercises (at most six, if you are using a traditional HIT approach) makes result tracking easier tenfold.
5) Athletes
The second most overlooked fundamental benefit of HIT is in relation to athletes. Athletes are interested in a handful of things: specifically, speed, agility, endurance, and strength. Athletes aren't concerned with looking good ala bodybuilders. Instead, athletes (lets use football as an example) focus on being able to move fast, move with mobility, and demonstrate power. Here, traditional arguments against HIT fly out the window. Avoiding senseless hours in the gym and lifting for strength allows exceptional amounts of time to focus on other key athletic elements. Lets say that HIT really didn't induce much hypertrophy (which I believe is absurd, but lets say that it doesn't for arguments sake). To an athlete, that wouldn't be a bad thing. A 200 pound linebacker bench pressing 350 pounds doesn't care if he is packing on weight. If he does pack on muscle weight it won't necessarily hurt, but if he doesn't, it won't hurt either. What matters is his ability to generate force. Beyond this, spending less time lifting is not as traumatic on joints and connective tissue and allows for better recovery from intense workouts that aren't related to weight training.
I have done my best to spare you, the reader, from more needless argument. Bodybuilders tend to volume, and oddly enough those of us who just want to get in shape mimic the lunacy of their efforts. This makes no sense; by admission, most of us don't want the steroid induced bulges of those we see in muscle magazines. So why do we work out as they do? Instead, it seems the more common man and woman would derive much better benefit in relationship to time and stress by incorporating a good HIT program into their lifestyle.
My bro is almost as smart as me
He writes the occasional article, and I think he does an excellent job.
