PlanStrong/BuiltStrong Jay vincent H.I.T.

[LukeV]

Do you also feel that you become stronger, that is your 1RM in these exercises increases ?

Yes that’s the case although I’m mainly inferring that from increases in my 10RM. I only lift above my 10RM once in a blue moon due to joint and tendon issues. My focus is primarily hypertrophy, strength gains are a (necessary) side effect, and as stated above I don’t believe HIT is optimal for hypertrophy or strength but it certainly does work, you do see measurable gains, and it is very efficient when you think about what you achieve compared to the time you spend in the gym. I read a study on hypertrophy sometime, this is from memory so don’t quote me on the actual figures, that showed one hard set equated to value 1 for muscle growth while five hard sets equated to 1.3 (with 2 to 4 sets in between). Now every meat head knows 30% more muscle is a lot of muscle but if it requires five times the effort? Yes, definitely still worth it haha But not for everybody.

 

[John K]

Yes that’s the case although I’m mainly inferring that from increases in my 10RM. I only lift above my 10RM once in a blue moon due to joint and tendon issues. My focus is primarily hypertrophy, strength gains are a (necessary) side effect, and as stated above I don’t believe HIT is optimal for hypertrophy or strength but it certainly does work, you do see measurable gains, and it is very efficient when you think about what you achieve compared to the time you spend in the gym. I read a study on hypertrophy sometime, this is from memory so don’t quote me on the actual figures, that showed one hard set equated to value 1 for muscle growth while five hard sets equated to 1.3 (with 2 to 4 sets in between). Now every meat head knows 30% more muscle is a lot of muscle but if it requires five times the effort? Yes, definitely still worth it haha But not for everybody.

Maybe not the same study, but a decade ago a meta analysis showed that 2-3 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, and 4-6 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, but there wasn’t much difference between hypertrophy of 2-3 vs 4-6 sets, but in general multiple sets resulted in 40% more hypertrophy than a single set.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Maybe not the same study, but a decade ago a meta analysis showed that 2-3 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, and 4-6 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, but there wasn’t much difference between hypertrophy of 2-3 vs 4-6 sets, but in general multiple sets resulted in 40% more hypertrophy than a single set.

That’s one I remember. I’ve used both singles and multiple sets with only the last one to tech failure. The addition of front sets makes a huge (no pun intended!) difference, even if those lead in sets generate very little fatigue. Hard to qualify it by set, but def for a small amount of additional effort, notable results.

I stand 100% behind my initial response, textbook HIT is a valid training option. To folks like Baye who claim its the only true way to strength train, you’re demonstrably wrong. Even guys like Mentzer didn’t use it in such a rigid framework.

 

[Ricky01]

Maybe not the same study, but a decade ago a meta analysis showed that 2-3 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, and 4-6 sets produced more hypertrophy than 1 set, but there wasn’t much difference between hypertrophy of 2-3 vs 4-6 sets, but in general multiple sets resulted in 40% more hypertrophy than a single set.

Interesting numbers.

I remember years ago following Mark Sissons Primal blueprint fitness plan.

It was a progressive plan based around pushup, pullup, squat and I think plank.

The target numbers were different, but it was roughly a high rep system. Get 2 sets of whatever number and move to a harder progression eg 2x50 incline pushups became 2x50 flat etc.

I think I remember him saying that 1x target reps (whatever the number was) was good, but the magic happened in the 2nd set.

It was also twice a week.

Richard

 

[silveraw]

I've thought of it as a cycle. Doing all volume work eventually desensitizes you to the volume, and you can only do so much; then suddenly, you stumble on to HIT and BOOM you blow up. Then you desensitize to the HIT, and discover volume, and BOOM you blow up. Not sure how accurate that is, but it is how I understand it.

Wasn't that kind of Tommy Kono's strategy? Alternating bodybuilding with weightlifting.

 

[John K]

Wasn't that kind of Tommy Kono's strategy? Alternating bodybuilding with weightlifting.

Possibly similar. I think you could see any volume-building based approach as a form of base building, and body building might fit in there. I don't know much about weightlifting and even less about bodybuilding, let alone how they were done in the 50s, 60s and 70s.