# Abbreviated Training: HIT/HD



## rburton (Oct 25, 2003)

I have found abbreviated routines (a la, HIT/HD), along with a sensible diet to be very effective for strength, mass, and appearance. What do you think?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 25, 2003)

I dont mind doing more sets, if I use low volume stuff then I start going back to 3 on 1 off type routines.

From John Defendis



> *How do your high intensity training methods differ from those championed by the late Mike Mentzer?*
> 
> JD: Mentzer's philosophy was based on laziness. You can print that - I say what I think. It was based to take advantage of lazy people who didn't want to work hard. "Hey you know what? You dont have to work hard, yuo can go into the gym for 20 minutes a day."
> 
> ...





Taken from
http://www.defendis.com/html/musclemag/defendis3.jpg

Index
http://www.defendis.com/html/musclemag.html

I know of a somewhat successfull trainer who uses low volume, with the final set having a 20 second static hold. I tried it for awhile but couldn't quite appreciate it.


----------



## rburton (Oct 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> I dont mind doing more sets, if I use low volume stuff then I start going back to 3 on 1 off type routines.
> 
> From John Defendis
> ...



This view implies that HIT/HD users are lazy, which is an ad hominem position (i.e., a "personal attack"  supported by neither logic nor data). 

Do you have proof to support this statement?


----------



## Skib (Oct 25, 2003)

"They can call it "high intensity training" or HIT, whatever they want to call it. I call it super high intensity training, which is SHIT."

i got a nice chuckle out of that one...


----------



## Mudge (Oct 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by rburton *_
> This view implies that HIT/HD users are lazy, which is an ad hominem position (i.e., a "personal attack"  supported by neither logic nor data).
> 
> Do you have proof to support this statement?



Proof to support someone elses statement? Or the text you quoted which says nothing negative about HIT in the first place? What proof do you seek?

The comment is based on the trend of "5 minute abs" and "20 minutes a day" workouts.


----------



## Skib (Oct 25, 2003)

why would you only want to train for 20 minutes a day in the first place?

for me training is enjoyable and gives me something to do to kill time so i'm not sitting at home being bored out of my skull in the evenings... can you even build up a nice sweat in 20 minutes? i like being at the gym for at least 45 minutes to an hour... but i'm usually there for about 75 minutes as of lately... obviously there are days where i only want to train for 20 minutes, and sometimes that's all i do... but i try to make up for those days the following day...

if you're only going to train for 20 minutes a day, i'd tell ya to not bother training at all cause obviously it seems like it's not something you want to put the time and effort into in the first place


----------



## Mudge (Oct 25, 2003)

Because the average lazy person wants to hear that they can strap on a device and eat pizza while watching TV and get great abs. Or by using xx magical device they can slim down in just 20 minutes a day 3 times a week.


----------



## rburton (Oct 26, 2003)

The training I use follows the principles developed by Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, Stuart McRobert, Bob Wheelan, as well as other HIT proponents. I train no more than two times per week for about 20 minutes per session. The intensity used during those sessions prevent me from training any longer or more frequently. I find the HIT method to be efficient and a perfect fit to my health needs.

 BTW, I monitor my daily food intake to avoid gaining any excess bodyfat, and I do not use any "magical device." My basic routine is a full body workout that draws upon a set group of core exercises: squat/leg press, deadlift, dip, overhead press, chin, and row. Each workout consists of 3-4 of these exercises, one set per exercise to failure, along with one set of either calf presses or weighted crunches.


----------



## Tha Don (Oct 26, 2003)

SHIT don't work for me

i stick to low-rep training, it just makes a lot more sense

i've tried high rep stuff and i just lost loads of weight

the weight i lost was muscle, and the muscle i lost meant i couldn't lift heavy anymore

took about 4 months off my training, it was a disaster

i agree with mudge and that john defendis guy


----------



## Mudge (Oct 26, 2003)

HIT is low rep, but also low set count. When Dorian used his version, he didn't count his multiple warmup sets as sets, basically throwing another plate on at each round.

I still dont like the low set idea though, I find that more is better, for the most part. Biceps is one area I dont do alot of sets, because they are already under alot of strain doing deads and rows, and my biceps aren't a problem area anyway. I dont want to hear that my sets are not intense either, because they are, I get the shakes doing half of the shit I do during my last reps.


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Oct 26, 2003)

IMO.... 20 minute workouts and 5 minute abs are not impossible concepts... HOWEVER... the VAST majority of people that take up these training methods are people that want to give less to their training and still get the best results... This is very very hard to achieve and only a select few can pull it off... not everyone that undertakes these training methods are lazy... BUT... I will bet the farm that these people aren't chosing this training method because it nets the best results, but because they don't have to invest as much... not exactly lazy... but not exactly treating their training as a top priority... 

I spend about 2-3 hours a day 5 days a week at the gym... when i look at a workout designed around 1-2 hours a week total spent at the gym... i am scepticle... I would hardly call these people who utilize this type of workout lazy... but i'd say the majority are probably unsuccessful...


----------



## rburton (Oct 26, 2003)

The opinions about the HIT method are interesting, to say the least. However, the views expressed are equating duration with intensity, but those two factors are not synonymous. 

Intensity refers to the amount of energy an individual can exert during a period of time. Low intensity, then, means that an individual is exerting a low amount of energy; hence, this individual is able to perform a given activity for an extended period of time. Those who use high intensity are using a great deal of energy during a given activity, meaning that these individuals can only perform at such a level for short durations. An example would be a sprinter contrasted with a long distance runner. To run at full speed, an individual would be exhausted within 90-120 sec, whereas a long distance runner, because he/she is exerting low energy, would be able to run for a long period of time, say,  one hour or longer. When comparing long distance runners with sprinters, who has the better physique? The sprinter!

High intensity training is not endurance training. In addition, high intensity training is efficient training, i.e., results are achieved in less time. I see no reason to train more than is necessary to maintain optimal health, which can be accomplished with less than one hour of training per week, assuming that the individual is following a healthy lifestyle.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 26, 2003)

Like Defendis said, your 1 set of intensity is no greater than his set of intensity.


----------



## rburton (Oct 26, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Like Defendis said, your 1 set of intensity is no greater than his set of intensity.



I never said my set is of greater intensity, but when one is a truly natural trainer (i.e., no supplements of any kind) and has a great deal of professional and familial obligations that must be met, brief, high intensity full-body routines are the most effective for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Besides, its not the amount of work one performs, it is the precise amount of work that one performs that results in optimal achievement.


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Oct 26, 2003)

Optimum achievement in weight training?  people who weight train all have such different goals... example, maximum mass, maximum strength, endurance, lean body mass, but optimum really isn't a measure... but i get your point... quality, not quantity... which i agree with...


----------



## rburton (Oct 26, 2003)

Good point--it is quality, not quantity that is the determining factor.


----------



## MarXXX (Oct 27, 2003)

What works for one may not work for all. If your method (or routine) works for you, that is fantastic! Anybody doing anything to better themselves is way better off than the guy eating chips in front of the tube!


----------



## Mudge (Oct 27, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by rburton *_
> Good point--it is quality, not quantity that is the determining factor.



One quality set is nowhere near enough for me.


----------



## Tha Don (Oct 27, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> One quality set is nowhere near enough for me.



too damm right!


----------



## rburton (Jun 19, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> One quality set is nowhere near enough for me.



Your statement depends upon what "quality" means. A single set of squats truly taken to positive muscular failure is a quality set, at least it is for those who have performed such a set. Have you completed a true squat set to failure? Think about it, you have to squat to parallel (or lower) until you can't do another rep, or so you you think; then, you have to complete 2, 3, 4, or more reps.


----------

